* FamilySearch backing out of GEDCOM?

[DavidNewton]

Once a week I read a few Blogs and this week Tamura Jones 'Modern Software Experience' contained a blog from 20th August
http://www.tamurajones.net/FamilySearch ... DCOM.xhtml
noting that the reference pages to the GEDCOM 5.5 and GEDCOM 5.5.1 standards had been removed from the FamilySearch website. She also made it clear that she was not happy about it.

It raises a question or two.
Does this mean that FamilySearch are getting ready to change to a new standard? (Extremely unlikely I would have thought)
Does this mean that FamilySearch propose that GEDCOM should no longer be used?

Anybody care to speculate?

David

[AdrianBruce]

FamilySearch backed out of GEDCOM years ago when they stopped developing it part way through the creation of v5.5.1. The LDS Church, I believe, saw no reason why they should be in the business of supporting software. (I sympathise with that view.)

In effect they have contributed nothing to GEDCOM since the 5.5.1 draft circa 1999. In fact, by retaining copyright on the "standard", they also ensured that no-one else could take it forward.

Over the last few years there have attempts at successors to GEDCOM - BetterGEDCOM, for instance. My opinion of the LDS's conduct over BetterGEDCOM is probably libellous. FamilySearch also contributed GEDCOMX, which some elements within FS still seem to hope could be a GEDCOM replacement. However the LDS intention for GEDCOMX seems unclear (you may think I'm being random with my choice of LDS or FS as a word. I'm not). Firstly it was going to be a new standard, then it was going to be a proposal for a new standard and now? I think it may just be software that FS happen to use???? (Tamura Jones has commented on this in his blog). (Allegedly it's already the basis of FamilySearch FamilyTree. I am not sure I believe that.) Seems to me that one part of LDS/FS want the GEDCOM replacement problem to go away by having everyone load their tree into Family Search. Curiously people do not seem to want their trees to be assimilated and their distinctiveness added to FamilySearch FamilyTree.

Logically, the answer is in the hands of the software suppliers. Create a new standard. However - it is clear that they do not believe data transfer is a selling point. Can't say that I would dispute that either. But people can, and will carry on writing software that does (or doesn't) conform to the standard. Just like they have done since 1999.

[jimlad68]

I recently noticed an item on this recently, sorry I don't have the link, the intimation was that LDS/FS was developing GEDCOMX and that it was effectively being partially used in FamilySearch trees (I'm sure Adrian knows more than I do).

I was also interested because I also noticed that Simon Orde (of FH) is a founder member of Family History Information Standards Organisation (FHISO), http://fhiso.org/?s=simon+orde&submit.x ... mit=Search
FHISO does not seem to have much momentum so far.

Right or wrong, I suspect it will take an organisation with the clout of LDS/FS to "impose" a new standard, as they did originally, the only other option would be for all the major "tree/ database" makers/users to agree, which seems unlikely.

So for the foreseeable future, GEDCOM is still the best/only migration standard, one of the reasons I chose FH.

see also http://genealogysstar.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... fhiso.html
http://familysearch.github.io/gedcomx/2 ... fhiso.html

[Valkrider]

FHISO is actually starting to do some work now. Their processes so far seem to me to be a bit bureaucratic and the public discussions do include the 'usual suspects'. There is a mailing list that you can subscribe to and contribute to at http://fhiso.org/mailman/listinfo/tsc-public_fhiso.org.

GedcomX has been around for many years as has BetterGedcom. Both seem to me to be dead standards as there has not been wide adoption of them.

I think that everyone agrees that the Gedcom standard needs to be updated, the challenge for FHISO will be to get agreement from and adoption by all the major players so that we as end-users can benefit.

[jimlad68]

I don't particularly want to resurect this topic but I found the following interesting: http://www.tamurajones.net/GEDCOM5.5.1IsntADraft.xhtml
from this page http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=1424.
Effectively it is saying that although Gedcom 5.5.1 was never officially released, FamilySearch implemented GEDCOM 5.5.1 in PAF 5.0 leading to some confusion for other developers in terms of compatibility etc. Simon Orde obviously feels GEDCOM 5.5 is the latest and good enough.

I regret I have missed a lot of the beta testing due mostly to travelling, although I have managed to keep an occasional eye on progress, but hope to at least have a better look, play and test when the next beta version comes out.

Many thanks to all you other testers.

[DavidNewton]

The freeware Utility mentioned in the Behold blog 'GEDCOM File Finder' is interesting if you are interested in GEDCOM versions (Of course I don't know how accurate it is).

On my backup drive I have numerous (more than 1300) gedcom files mostly produced by FH5 (v5.5 ANSI) but also by Rootsmagic 6 (v5.5.1, UTF-8), Legacy 7.5 & 8 (v5.5.1, UTF-8, ANSEL or ANSI) and Family Tree Maker 2012 & 2014 (various).

Family Tree Maker is interesting and the indication from my mini sample is that anyone moving from FTM to FH should export the GEDCOM from FTM with destination FTM v16 (and character set ANSI) as this seems to yield a v5.5 GEDCOM. Exporting with destination GEDCOM 5.5 yields a v5.5.1 GEDCOM

David

[tatewise]

David, that advice seems to contradict how_to:import_from_family_tree_maker|> Import from Family Tree Maker (FTM) that has been used successfully by other FHUG members. Can you explain more?

[DavidNewton]

GEDCOM File Finder.PNG (26.66 KiB) Viewed 6793 times

Mike

I am attaching a screen shot of part of the output from GEDCOM file finder as used on my backup folder As I said a mini-sample.

The software extracts the header data from the .ged file and then the file itself is analysed. The last three lines on this screen shot list were produced shortly before I changed over to FH and at the time I was trying out export options in FTM2014. I have no clue what FTW in the penultimate Dest means but I had recorded in the filename what option I was using so that represents export with destination FTMv16.

David

Added in Edit: the eagle-eyed will notice the major size difference between the last three files and the rest. I was using just one family with 8 individuals for my experiments.

[tatewise]

I think the important point is that how_to:import_from_family_tree_maker|> Import from Family Tree Maker (FTM) says to use:
Select Character set as ANSI.

Your files that use that selection are GEDCOM 5.5
QED