TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012905062


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 04:31:02 -0600
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020204210622.00a0f330@pop.sprynet.com><021401c1ad6d$012dbde0$895132d2@good><3C5C47B0.1830.B27A9C@localhost><5.1.0.14.2.20020202071024.0d30fdb0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020202022259.00a0d590@pop.sprynet.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020202205107.00a10900@pop.sprynet.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020203104056.00a3fec0@pop.sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020204225939.056140d0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com>


At 11:03 PM 2/4/02 -0500, Bob Velke wrote:
>Darrell said:
>
>>However, Bob V. has made it clear that TMG witness data will not be
>>exported via GEDCOM.
>
>Sigh.
>
>I've given up on this public thread but if you continue to discuss it,
>then it would at least lend some credibility to your cause if you take
>pains to either represent my position accurately or to not presume to do
>so at all.
>
>-Bob

Bob:

I am honestly sorry that you think I have misrepresented your position.

You said on February 1, found in the TMG-L archives at:
http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/T/TMG+2002+260481425+F

> There is an assumption here that there is a reliable way to transfer
> witness data (or any number of other kinds of problematic data) between two
> different genealogy programs and that it is my responsibility to point you
> to it <g>. There ISN'T. I wish there were.

You said in a different message on the same day, found at:
http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/T/TMG+2002+249448315+F

> Witnesses cannot be transferred by GEDCOM, period. If you want to design
> another transfer protocol (call it something else, etc.) then I'm all
> ears. But why do you insist on carrying a leaky bucket and then complain
> that the carpet gets wet?

You also said on February 2, found at:
http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/T/TMG+2002+318603026+F

> I've agreed that GEDCOM *should* be able to transfer structured witness
> data - but it isn't. I've also agreed that it *is* able to transfer
> narrative data - but it doesn't have that. If you enter narrative data,
> however, then that's what it will transfer.

> > I do *not* want to create superfluous Biography tags for every event with
> > witnesses.

> It isn't superfluous. It is a different kind of data. And while you
> recognize that that's what's necessary to transfer it with GEDCOM, you
> insist that it should be created ... but not by you <g>. I think that's
> really the only point on which we disagree.

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois



This thread: