Jay Askren wrote: > That's a good thought, but I don't know that another developer coming > up with yet another genealogy modeling language is the solution. > There are plenty of those out there already. Several other models out > there were created by big names in the xml world, but I believe they > haven't been successful because of lack of adoption, not because of > lack of technical expertise. I don't know at this point that there is > much reason for the genealogy application world to switch from gedcom. > From the perspective of the developer, it is certainly nice to move > to xml, but for your average family historians, they could care less > about what the actual modeling language is. They just want to not > lose information when they move data to another genealogy > appllication. For software vendors, what use is there in spending > precious resources on importing/exporting xml when the competing > vendors generally don't import these other xml formats? Fortunately, > I suspect the new family search could change this. Vendors may > support the church's new format in the future, since being able to > access to Family Search adds definite value to the end user. > > I belong to the genealogyXml group mentioned earlier and here are some > questions on their FAQ about this topic: > > 12. Why isn't there a standard XML vocabulary for genealogical data? > That's a good question but a touchy subject for many group members. > The simple answer is that standards come from standards organizations, > but there is no standards organization dedicated to computer > applications of genealogy. > > Because GEDCOM 5.5 is widely-used, the LDS Church has become an > inadvertent standards organization. However, the Church does not seem > interested in developing and promoting a newer standard that is "open" > or "universal". It can be argued that an independent group of > professional genealogists and technologists would be better-positioned > to create and maintain such a standard anyway. > > Over the past decade various individuals and small groups have tried > to organize "grassroots" standards movements. These efforts have had > little or no success. The lack of success doesn't imply that > standardization is futile, but does suggest that it's difficult. > > 13. Couldn't the GenealogyXML group become a standards organization? > It's possible but unlikely. This group was not founded with that > intention, although there was once considerable discussion about > changing the group's focus. Several members have expressed support for > standards development, but creating a standard requires considerable > time and effort (and probably money). Very few people have the > interest, dedication, and resources to accomplish this. Even with > sufficient resources, it is hard to imagine the creation of a true > standard without broad input and support from the genealogical > community. > > > Jay
Now that I know about the new Family Search-backed xml standard I think I'll just go that route. Brandon Stout http://pgv.flfn.org http://flfn.org _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
