[Sources-Citations] Opportunity from FamilySearch; possible path to meeting it
nick-h at gramps-project.org
Mon Jun 15 12:07:09 CDT 2015
This is an excellent opportunity. My biggest concern with FHISO has
been the apparent lack of support from the major players.
The model that you outline is acceptable to me.
On 15/06/15 17:20, Luther Tychonievich wrote:
> Last week I visited with Ryan Heaton of FamilySearch, who is the lead
> developer of the GEDCOM-X specification currently used for
> communication between FamilySearch and all of its partners (including,
> as I understand it, Ancestry, MyHeritage, and FindMyPast). Amongst
> other things, he told me that he anticipated that the GEDCOM-X
> SourceDetail record would be updated starting perhaps a year from now,
> and that if FHISO had an acceptable standard he would like to say
> simply "GEDCOM-X used FHISO standard ___ for its SourceDetial
> element". He suggested that once such was in place they would roll
> the GEDCOM-X version 1.0, and that if FHISO did not have one he could
> use by then they would probably design their own.
> To explore what he was thinking in more detail, I discussed several
> possible bibliographic metadata models with him. He seemed interested
> in something simple and extensible. One idea that seemed to interest
> him was
> - A (multi?)map of key:value pairs
> - Where keys are URIs (see
> for why he likes URIs), with a non-exhaustive set of standard keys
> - With suggested (but probably not enforced) guidelines such as the
> following examples (illustrative of structure, not content):
> - if the "type" key has value "book", expect keys "author",
> "title", and "publisher"
> - the value associated with the "publication date" key should be a
> in EDTF 1.0 format
> - Where one of the valid types a value could have would be a reference
> to another map like this (for, e.g., "part of" keys to link chapters
> to their owning book, "in repository" keys, etc.)
> I thus put the following questions to this group:
> 1. Do we want to shoot for having something done in time for GEDCOM-X
> version 1.0 to include it?
> 2. Are there goals the outlined map model does not permit? If so, can
> correcting them keep the model simple?
> 3. Is there a different model we should suggest?
More information about the Sources-Citations