GENBOX-L Archives

Archiver > GENBOX > 2004-03 > 1078260774


From: "Tom Morris" <>
Subject: RE: [GENBOX] Gedcom (a mandatory capability)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 15:52:54 -0500
In-Reply-To: <FFEBLNNBNENFDKOPJEBPKEECEKAA.paulharris@nc.rr.com>


Paul wrote:

> I am no Gedcom expert. In fact, I have only used Gedcom 2
> times in 15 years: PAF -> TMG -> Genbox. One thing I DO know
> about Gedcom is that it is NOT capable of transferring the
> nuances of data items and features that are proprietary to a
> specific software program.

Well, I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about both the GEDCOM
specification and its implementations and I disagree with this statement.
GEDCOM specifically includes an extension mechanism for representing
non-standard information -- a mechanism that Genbox makes extensive use of,
by the way. If two programs implement the same non-standard feature in
different ways (Legacy To Do's and Genbox Research Targets), the information
won't get communicated without transformation of the GEDCOM, but if the
information is there then at least someone has the option of doing the
transformation (including the developers of the receiving program).

> So when something is missing when a program re-imports its
> own Gedcom file, I say, "Yeah, so what did you expect?"

Here's what I expect. I expect Genbox to include EVERY piece of data that I
enter SOMEPLACE in the GEDCOM output file. I further expect Genbox to be
able to reimport that file and create a database which EXACTLY matches the
one that it was output from (modulo details like change dates and other
items that are expect to change).

Does anyone expect anything less? If I find out that this is something that
the development team doesn't take seriously, rather than just some short
term bugs that will be fixed soon, I'll stop my evaluation of Genbox right
now and write off the investment in time and money over the last year.

Tom




This thread: