Restricting the scope to a narrow definition of what we do is not very likely to yeild a standard that is useful for the development of the variety of tools needed. I would go so far as to say that genealogical research is a multi-disciplinary enterprise. > Genealogy, family history or whatever other name you want to use, is a very broad discipline. I am personally only interested in a model that is based on and useful for genealogical and family history research. If micro-history would also be used for such things as researching military history, where the persons and their relationships were secondary issues, and FHISO were to start working on standards for things like that, I would happily turn aside and do something else. If that means that my vision of genealogy is near that of micro-history, good. Personally I believe that any event that occurs in the life of a person is fair game for inclusion in a genealogical database. > If we are developing a standard for micro-history, I haven't a clue what that means, and would probably excuse myself from the process. But there should also be a mechanism for adding user-defined event types.
If it is developing a standard for transporting and archiving genealogical data (which is my default assumption about FHISO until told differently), then there should be, in my opinion, a longish list of standard events. > A lot seems to depend upon what FHISO decides it is doing.
On Sep 17, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Family Folk wrote: Next message (by thread): The Gramps, Behold, and DeadEnds Equivalency Principle.Previous message (by thread): The Gramps, Behold, and DeadEnds Equivalency Principle.
The Gramps, Behold, and DeadEnds Equivalency Principle Thomas Wetmore ttw4 at The Gramps, Behold, and DeadEnds Equivalency Principle