Jump to content


Photo

Need for more info in fact description


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 Bob C

Bob C

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 01:12 PM

A rather disheartening situation, are we returning to the incomparability seen in early family history programmes?

I rather hope FamilySearch do get Gedcom x to float,  I cannot think of another large organisation (with out commercial interests) who would take on a gedcom replacement - or am I missing something?

 

See https://fhiso.org/

 

and https://parallax-vie...ther-fhiso.html



#22 KFN

KFN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 145 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 06:41 PM

Trebor22 said: "are we returning to incomparability (sic) seen in early family history programs"

I'm not sure that we ever had a period where we had compatibility in family history programs. I've owned at least a half dozen and and tried a few more since the mid 80s and that has always been an issue for me.

I provided input in the early days of "Better GEDCOM" a precourser to FHISO. The problem has never really been that we need a better GEDCOM, or in other words creating a better GEDCOM is not the first hurdle. The first hurdle is getting software companies to actually support the current GEDCOM. Once they support the current one, creating incrementally better and more robust versions would be a smaller task. Smaller because each company would have a common base of discussion about what they produce and how they want the data used and transferred. But the reality is that it is not to the benefit of each company to allow their users to move easily from software to software. And I sympathize with them, software is expensive to produce. Implementing these changes would put some more companies out of business.

#23 robertjacobs0

robertjacobs0

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 173 posts

Posted 11 January 2018 - 12:27 PM

The task of conversion from one program to another is not insurmountable. Consider John Cardinal's wonderful GedSite program. It seamlessly accepts GEDCOMS from at least five different genealogy programs and turns the data into websites which are far more flexible and attractive than any of the sites put up by Ancestry, Family Search, etc.

 

I would think that the same interpretive programming techniques that John uses to convert GEDCOMS to a format that GedSite can use could be used to convert GEDCOMS to the native formats of different genealogy programs.