FAMC constraint questions

[dthaler]

The FamilySearch GEDCOM 7 spec says in section 3.2.2:

Events stored as facts within an INDI record may also have FAMC or ASSO tags to indicate families and individuals that participated in those events. For example, a FAMC pointer subordinate to an adoption event indicates a relationship to family by adoption; biological parents can be shown by a FAMC pointer subordinate to the birth event; the eulogist at a funeral can be shown by an ASSO pointer subordinate to the burial event; and so on.

And of course a SLGC can also have a subordinate FAMC.

Question 1: is it required or not required that any such FAMC in a SLGC, BIRT, CHR, or ADOP point to a family that also has a FAMC directly under the INDIVIDUAL_RECORD for the same family? I.e., is it permissible to have the former without the latter?

a.

    1 ADOP Y
    2 FAMC @F1@

b.

    1 FAMC @F1@

Question 2: is it required or not required that if there is FAMC.PEDI SEALING then there must be a corresponding SLGC.FAMC for that family?

a.

    1 FAMC @F1@
    2 PEDI SEALING

b.

    1 SLGC
    2 FAMC @F1@

Question 3: is it required or not required that if there is FAMC.PEDI ADOPTED then there must be an ADOP.FAMC for that family?

a.

    1 FAMC @F1@
    2 PEDI ADOPTED

b.

    1 ADOP Y
    2 FAMC @F1@

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 ignore ADOP Y.FAMC, whereas another implementation might use ADOP Y.FAMC and ignore FAMC.PEDI ADOPTED and hence they cannot exchange data without loss, even though they can both represent that information.

[tychonievich]

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.

[tychonievich]

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.