TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012588161


From: "Jim Byram" <>
Subject: Re: Re: [TMG] Witness and Roles and V5.0
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 13:29:21 -0500
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020201101637.074610b0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com>


> Jim said:
>
> >There is no reason for TMG not to output to a GEDCOM 5.5 file for
all
> >individuals associated with an individual event irrespective of
> >whether the individual is p1, p2, or a witness.

And then Bob said:
>
> I can think of a good reason. If I am linked as a witness to your
Baptism
> event, then such a GEDCOM file would indicate to other programs that
_I_
> was baptized on that date.

Perfect example of the difficulties in ever coming up with a way to
implement this. Two things must be considered... whether the tag is
appropriate for such output and whether the role can be used to result
in valid GEDCOM tag output. Some tags such as census would allow valid
output and other tags would require using the GEDCOM EVEN tag. The
problem is non-trivial but the outcome is possible with no data
corruption.

> Census is arguably an exception but most people seem content to
record the
> heads of household as principals and everyone else as witnesses
(perhaps
> with their roles). After all, the focus of the census _was_ the
head of
> household and other people in the record did not have equal weight
(which
> is not to say that they aren't "important").

It's interesting that the recommended NARA bibliographic output for
census is based on person by person reporting. Head of household is
not factored in at all. Each person is given equal weight. Ideally,
for census most of us want to accomplish what TMG allows in reports
with the role specified and we can do that in narrative reports but
not in GEDCOM output.

> It is a backward argument to change the nature of genealogical data
in
> order to overcome the fact that a particular transfer medium doesn't
> support it.

That argument was never intended.

Jim


This thread: