Hi, An update: FamilySearch has now moved to accomodate our objections.
- Java has been excised from the gedcomx repository and now resides in a separate repo. - They are aware of the documentation shortcomings, and are working to address them. In addition, tonight a number of new proposals showed up that look very interesting, especially regarding the "persona" construct which I think could be a very good solution to the problem of conflicting sources. I will continue to try and push them in a direction I feel would support my needs, and I encourage you to do the same :) Regards, Mikkel PS. I'll try not to "spam" this list about GedcomX any more! On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Mikkel Eide Eriksen <mikkel.erik...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Took a little longer than expected due to other commitments, but I've created > an issue here: > https://github.com/FamilySearch/gedcomx/issues/228 > > Please comment as you see fit. > > Mikkel > > On 31/12/2012, at 22.39, Ron Savage <r...@savage.net.au> wrote: > >> Hi Mikkel >> >> On 01/01/13 03:45, Mikkel Eide Eriksen wrote: >>> On 31/12/2012, at 17.31, Philip Durbin<philipdur...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/30/2012 07:05 PM, Stephen Woodbridge wrote: >>>>> 4. I didn't like the connection to Java either, I see no need for that >>>>> in the spec, if there is some point that they are trying to establish by >>>>> it, it would be better to just spell it out in details so people that do >>>>> not work with Java have direct guidance. >>>> >>>> Right, I thought it was odd to read "the GEDCOM X data model is defined in >>>> Java" at http://www.gedcomx.org/Code.html >>>> >>>> Likewise, http://www.gedcomx.org/Community.html says "The GEDCOM X schemas >>>> and interfaces are defined in Java." >>>> >>>> Thank you, everyone, for the great discussion on GEDCOM X. It seems like >>>> something to keep an eye on. >>> >>> I think I saw one of the devs (possibly Ryan Heaton @stoicflame) comment on >>> an issue at some point that they were moving away from defining it in terms >>> of Java and rather to have a language-agnostic spec with a reference >>> implementation in Java. I can't find it just now, but in any case, I should >>> think that would be the correct way of dealing with it. And if I'm not >>> misremembering, that should be put on their site in big fat letters. >>> >>> Perhaps I'll open a ticket next year ;) if I don't find where they said it. >> >> Yes, open a ticket, politely but firmly reminding them that a Java-centric >> view of the world is not the only possible view... >> >> Happy New Year! >> >> And here's hoping this year is even more productive that the last, which for >> me at least, was very productive :-). >> >> -- >> Ron Savage >> http://savage.net.au/ >> Ph: 0421 920 622 >
