Closed dthaler closed 2 years ago
Question 1: reworded, can a person be adopted into a family, sealed into a family, or born into a family but not be a member of that family?\ My answer: yes they can, for example in the case of a surrogacy (BIRT.FAMC that is not in the INDI) or the early church practice of "adoption" to famous people (SLGC.FAMC that is not in the INDI)
Question 2: reworded, can the relationship between a child and its parent be described as "sealing" without a sealing event?\ My answer: I can't think of a case for this, but am unsure if we should specify that it is prohibited.
Question 3: reworded, can the relationship between a child and its parent be described as "adopted" without an adoption event?\ My answer: I'd assume that such a case referred to a de facto adoption rather than a formal adoption, and thus allow it.
Discussed by steering committee 2022-04-05
INDI.FAMC (and its antisymmetric FAM.CHIL) suggest social or spiritual membership in a family.
INDI.[ADOP|SLGC|BIRT|CHR] is an event. It's FAMC is a detail about the event. We could have the event with a family relationship or without
INDI.FAMC.PEDI ADOPTED as worded implies only a social relationship, which may or may not have any associated adoption event. Similarly, INDI.ADOP discusses an adoption event but may or may not indicate adoption becomes the primary relationship time for the FAMC.
INDI.FAMC.PEDI SEALING as worded always implies a SLGC. It is unclear if we should require or merely recommend the SLGC being present. Because not all tools support these two (because not all programs are interested in supporting LDS ordinances), there may be import/export chains between tools that leave one without the other (in either direction) so requiring is not viable.
Conclusion: none of these items should be enforced. But we could add a "recommended" text on the PEDI SEALING entry. All of this discussion might also fit in the technical FAQ, and/or expository notes in the spec.
The FamilySearch GEDCOM 7 spec says in section 3.2.2:
And of course a
SLGC
can also have a subordinateFAMC
.Question 1: is it required or not required that any such
FAMC
in aSLGC
,BIRT
,CHR
, orADOP
point to a family that also has aFAMC
directly under theINDIVIDUAL_RECORD
for the same family? I.e., is it permissible to have the former without the latter?a.
b.
Question 2: is it required or not required that if there is
FAMC.PEDI SEALING
then there must be a correspondingSLGC.FAMC
for that family?a.
b.
Question 3: is it required or not required that if there is
FAMC.PEDI ADOPTED
then there must be anADOP.FAMC
for that family?a.
b.
For any of the above that are answered "not required", it seems that there can be interoperability problems, since (say) one implementation might use
FAMC.PEDI ADOPTED
and ignoreADOP Y.FAMC
, whereas another implementation might useADOP Y.FAMC
and ignoreFAMC.PEDI ADOPTED
and hence they cannot exchange data without loss, even though they can both represent that information.