* Exported OBJE records

[edmacke]

I have some media in my project, but when I attempt to validate the exported GEDCOM file, I'm getting warning messages on the OBJE records.

I don't know if there's a problem with the file, or with the validator.

Here is the exported OBJE section:
0 @O3@ OBJE
1 FORM jpeg
1 TITL THARP, Thomas R - Gravestone
1 FILE Media\thomas_r_tharp_gravestone.jpg
1 CHAN
2 DATE 23 JUL 2016
3 TIME 11:10:04

And here is the complaint generated by the Chonoplex GEDCOM Validator v 5.0.1.0 (current version). The exported file seems to be GEDCOM version 5.5, and it seems like the validator might actually be validating against the 5.5.1 standard, which makes me think maybe it's a validator problem.

[AdrianBruce]

I'd agree with your diagnosis - the messages all describe the 5.5.1 format in relation to OBJ - which is quite different to the 5.5 format.

Funnily enough it's actually a change that's described in the introduction to the 5.5.1 standard (cynic? moi?)

• Removed the option for encoding embedded multimedia objects. A file reference to a multimedia file and its subordinate format and media types were added to the multimedia record. Multiple file references can now be used to group related multimedia objects. This changed the multimedia link by placing the FORM tag subordinate to the FILE tag rather than at the same level. The BLOB tag was eliminated. See FILE tag and its subordinate FORM tag used in the <<MULTIMEDIA_RECORD>> page 26 and the <<MULTIMEDIA_LINK>> page 37.

[tatewise]

Which export options are you using? (I suspect Destination: Family Tree Maker)
Usually FH exports OBJEct records with the custom _FILE tag (instead of FILE) which is 5.5 compatible, and may avoid confusing the validator into thinking it is Draft 5.5.1.

I have suggested to Calico Pie that FH should support more Draft 5.5.1 import and export options.

[edmacke]

I'll check on the export options when I get home. I don't recall changing it, so I suspect it would be whatever the default is, but I'll double-check.

And, yeah, that 5.5 to 5.5.1 multimedia stuff... frankly the 5.5 stuff seems kind of a mess. The 5.5.1 seems to handle it better, but it doesn't look like FH offers a 5.5.1 export option.

[tatewise]

There are plenty of pros and cons relating to the Gedcom specifications and the Church of LDS created the 'mess'.
Pro

• The vast majority of Release 5.5 and Draft 5.5.1 are consistent, especially the most popular structures.
• Most products use a database schema based on the Gedcom record structures.
• You think Gedcom is a 'mess'? Without Gedcom, migrating between products would be a bigger 'MESS'!

Con

• Release 5.5 is the only formal standard. Draft 5.5.1 says it must not be used by programs. BUT was used by LDS in their PAF program, which has opened the floodgates for others
• FH claims that only Release 5.5 is valid and claims 100% adherence, but offers UTF-8 encoding that is only in Draft 5.5.1 and may use the FILE tag in OBJE records.
• All products use an interpretation of the two specifications in various hybrid combinations, which leads to many slightly different dialects.

My Export Gedcom File Plugin tries to accommodate those dialects for all the FH structures and does use some of Draft 5.5.1 where appropriate. I am still learning about how other products interpret Gedcom and will adjust the Plugin as necessary. The biggest variations are the custom tags added by each product.

[edmacke]

Probably not clear in my post, but I was just saying the 5.5 OBJE stuff seemed like a mess, not the entirety of GEDCOM (for example, the MULTIMEDIA_RECORD doesn't allow you to point to an external file via FILE, but the MULTIMEDIA_LINK does.... huh?).

But since you bring it up.... yeah. I suppose GEDCOM is better than nothing, but yuck. I mean, God bless the LDS folk (ha!) for coming up with something back in the day, but now it seems a little, uh, antiquated? Abandoned? Clunky? Inflexible? Like PDF isn't a recognized format?

I'm surprised like Ancestry or another industry leader hasn't come up with an XML or alternate version by now (maybe start with the GEDOM 2002 XML draft and make it a little less LDS-y?).

OK, end of soapbox

[tatewise]

I agree that external File anomaly is a bit odd.

Don't know what you mean by "PDF isn't a recognized format"?
Media files can be absolutely any format you like as far as Gedcom is concerned.
See how_to:v4:adding_multimedia|> Adding Photographs and Other Multimedia under Adding Other Media.

Perhaps you are mixing that up with the way different file-types are handled by FH, although it does allow them all to be linked, but not displayed in Reports, etc. But taking the analogy further, how could you display audio or video media files in Reports?

[edmacke]

Don't know what you mean by "PDF isn't a recognized format"?

That per the GEDCOM 5.5 documentation, the only valid choices for multimedia format are the 7 items below. Even "jpg" isn't valid - you have to specify "jpeg" (with an "e").

FH and other programs seem to work just fine in spite of that, but, officially GEDCOM doesn't recognize "pdf" as a valid OBJE/FORM value.

Code: Select all

MULTIMEDIA_FORMAT:= {Size=3:4}
[ bmp | gif | jpeg | ole | pcx | tiff | wav ]
Indicates the format of the multimedia data associated with the specific GEDCOM context....

[edmacke]

I'd agree with your diagnosis - the messages all describe the 5.5.1 format in relation to OBJ - which is quite different to the 5.5 format.

Update: I emailed Chronoplex tech support (makers of the GEDCOM validator I'm using) to ask why it seemed like 5.5.1 validation was being done on a 5.5 file. Their response was as follows:

This is caused by the fact that Family Historian is exporting the file as UTF-8 and labelling the file as GEDCOM 5.5 (an invalid combination). Files which correctly use UTF-8 encoding should actually be 5.5.1 or later. The issue will be corrected in a subsequent build.

I assume "subsequent build" refers to Chronoplex GEDCOM Validator, not FH.

[tatewise]

Ah! I see what you mean regarding the FORM tag.
BUT 5.5 does say: "Industry standards will emerge in this area ..." that perhaps gives some leeway, whereas 5.5.1 does not say that.
In practice most products seem to ignore that FORM tag restriction.

[edmacke]

BUT 5.5 does say: "Industry standards will emerge in this area ..."

Yeah, that's the problem! Industry standards have emerged in this area (e.g. video), but GEDCOM hasn't.

In practice most products seem to ignore that FORM tag restriction.

Good thing, too. Option 1: Only support official GEDCOM formats. Option 2: Ignore the GEDCOM restriction and support multimedia formats made popular post-1995.