TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012690836


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 18:00:36 -0500
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020202071024.0d30fdb0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020202022259.00a0d590@pop.sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C5C47B0.1830.B27A9C@localhost>


F. Langset wrote:
>I hope this is not regarded as an undue interference in your
>discussion.

This discussion is open to all comers. <g>

>Question (rhetorical): Assuming the eventually new standard, if it
>appears, will not match TMG's data model 100%, how do I use TMG to
>day in order to be able to use the new transfer standard when it
>appears? What tags do I need to create? How do I structure my data?
>And it must not conflict with me using GEDCOM until then (might be
>until forever ;) ). Or do you suggest that I take the work the day
>the new standard eventually appears?

Just for the record, TMG as currently implemented is not all that far
removed from the GENTECH Data Model. Yes, there are differences, but when
the GENTECH Data Model is fully accepted for use by the genealogical
industry/community, I am sure that a new version of TMG will be created
that fully implements the Data Model and will automatically convert your
data to that new version.

>In my opinion TMG must itself convert the data between its own data
>model and the GEDCOM data model, retaining data integrity within the
>GEDCOM file and, as far as the different models and the approach one
>uses allow, between TMG and GEDCOM (through constraints put on the
>user if needed, but I think they can be more relaxed than today's TMG
>enforces). There is no need to make an exact copy of the TMG data
>_model_ in the gedcom data model, and we should not need to create a
>GEDCOM-like data model in the TMG data model (as suggested in the
>above citation) in order to be able to transfer what we need via
>GEDCOM, because then TMG could make a near exact copy.

The problem is that there is no "GEDCOM data model." GEDCOM is an
ambiguously written "standard" based on what was understood as the needs of
the genealogical community. That is, no data model for genealogy had ever
been developed until the GENTECH Data Model was developed. However, the
understanding of those needs varies from person to person due to the fact
that there are no well-defined genealogical term (either in the US and
(especially) internationally). We make use terms during conversations for
which we know the meaning and have no problem even though the parties to
the conversation have slightly differing meanings.

> We must not let the holes in GEDCOM reflect into TMG.

That is exactly the point that Bob is making. TMG can allow the user to
enter data for which there is no method (within GEDCOM) to export the data
such that the data is understood correctly by another program. Lacking
such a method, TMG simply chooses to ignore that data rather than possibly
(probably) export corrupt data. So TMG follows the GEDCOM "standard" as
closely as possible -- while allowing the user to still enter
non-exportable (via GEDCOM) data _IF_ they wish. Alternatively, TMG also
allows the user to enter data in such a way that it may be exported via
GEDCOM. The problem with this last is that some TMG capabilities are not
used. The user just has to determine which is the most important -- using
the advanced capabilities of TMG or not.


----------
Lee Hoffman/KY
E-mail:
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
--------------
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)


This thread: