* Full use of RESN tag

[sgroarke]

Here's a wish (and applies to post-V3 also!): Comprehensive use of the RESN tag.

As I understand the standard, any event, person, source, etc, should be taggable with RESN. In FH it seems limited and arbitrary what can be tagged. Also, it's tucked away as an 'LDS' option (well, isn't the whole Gedcom standard an 'LDS option'!! )

Also, currently seems that one can only tag as 'locked' or 'private'. This is also arbitrary - I'd like to be able to define my own tag value (e.g. a source cross-reference, the word 'confidential', etc)

Privacy is becoming more and more important as more of us share and post info to the web. RESN should not be seen as obscure, but should be easily available.

Sean

ID:1466

[Jane]

You can create as many flags as you need. Check out the section of the manual covering record flags.

I don't know much about the RESN, but the new flags in V3 are exceptionally flexable.

[TimTreeby]

As i read the Standard RESN tag is only for an individual and is only really used for LDS anyway. Therfore unless i have read this wrong or you have another definition then i believe that Simon has implemented it corectly.
See Definition below

A RESTRICTION (RESN) tag and a primitive were added to the INDIVIDUAL_RECORD context. This allows some records in Ancestral File to be marked for privacy (indicating some personal information is not included) and some records to be marked as locked (indicating that Ancestral File will not make changes to the record without authorization from an assigned record steward).

[sgroarke]

Strictly you are correct: FH claims compliance with GEDCOM 5.5.

Yet the 'draft' 5.5.1 (which has been floating around since 1999!!!) extended RESN to Families and Events. And other vendors have gone the whole hog and simply allowed it to apply to any record (e.g. source, etc.)

Hence this is a 'wish' and not a bug report! Many other vendors do support 5.5.1 - my wish is that FH did too.

Of course there's no obligation for FH to support a draft standard, since in theory it might change. But a draft that has been around for 8 years and is very widely accepted as 'the standard' seems worth keeping up with, particularly as it is just an extension of 5.5, and fully backwards compatible.

Also, the whole area of data privacy has become a very hot issue in the age since GEDCOM 5.5 (or indeed 5.5.1) was written - and since FH now comes with whizz-bang web-generation facilities this whole area might be worth a thorough review by the developers...

Just my thoughts.

Sean

PS And in case anyone wonders, yes, I really do want full RESN tag support - it's not just a theoretical gap, but something I'm desperate to make use of.

[Jane]

Added to Wish list as above title