* What is an objective definition of "Splitting"?

[ColeValleyGirl]

Must admit I had been tempted to respond to Helen's post about the revised forum groupings to say that a separate "Gedcom" forum really needs to be included - some of the recent discussions which have degenerated into disagreements about the meaning of certain words in the Gedcom specs really are off-putting and I'm not "new to genealogy and/or Family Historian"!.

I fear the Gedcom sits within the category of 'thing that will crop up across multiple topics...' so isn't easily split off.

[Mark1834]

Agree completely with Teresa and Sarah - IMO, this thread is a perfect example of how not to do things, and is mostly an overly detailed discussion about philosophical points that matter not one iota in the real world.

Apologies if anybody is offended by the description, but there are an increasing number of threads recently that I feel go absolutely nowhere and that’s not what FHUG is supposed to be for.

[KFN]

The OP actually lead off with questions regarding his interpretation of v5.5.1 GEDCOM and its relationship to "Splitting", and how to use or change his way of entering data to conform to v5.5.1 GEDCOM.

I had the feeling that an objective definition of "Splitting" was likely based on the GEDCOM standard format. So I took a look at an old copy of the draft 5.5.1 standard that I had on hand...

My first entry was to give a definition of "Lumping" and "Splitting", and my interpretation of GEDCOM in that regard.

My involvement in this discussion, and any other questions that cite GEDCOM, is purely because of my involvement in GEDCOM since some time in the 1980's.

I came to FH because it claimed to be 100% GEDCOM compliant and that it used GEDCOM within its database, which encouraged me to try to help others understand GEDCOM.

If this is "off putting" in this thread, then I'll try to never talk GEDCOM again, but it is hard when others ask or make a statement about GEDCOM that needs some level of additional information to add either background or a look into the future of GEDCOM v7 and beyond.

Again, I'm sorry that my input is not what this forum want or needs.

[AdrianBruce]

... an anally-retentive discussion about philosophical points that matter not one iota in the real world. ...

The problem is that - in my opinion - there are times when "philosophy" is necessary.

Suppose an OP asks which of two methods is best from the point of view of future-proofing. Short of a TARDIS, there is no objective method of answering that other than trying to divine the likeliest direction that Calico Pie and/or the GEDCOM Standard is likely to go. That's philosophy that doesn't matter in today's real world but could very well impact tomorrow's.

[Mark1834]

Agree - there is a time and place for everything, and discussions about GEDCOM details or what may or may not happen in the future with FH/CP or the world in general are part of that. It was the rather unstructured wanderings of this thread, coming at a time when we are trying to give FHUG more focus and make it more inviting that I was pushing back against.

[brianlummis]

May I offer a possible solution to the lengthy discussions on Splitting and Lumping, GEDCOM definitions, and any other philosophical discussions that people might want to debate. On another Forum that I subscribe to, they have an Off Topic Section which can be used for that purpose. In other words if the topic does not relate to the main purpose of the FHUG, which I believe is to discuss using the Family Historian software then it should not be a part of the main Forum.

This particular topic has over 50 postings, very few, if any, which answer the question of "how do I do this in FH" - so, in my opinion, it has no real place here.

[LornaCraig]

This topic is now locked. Moderators are aware of the views expressed.