From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2004-11-06T02:13:54+09:00
Subject: Re: [QUIZ] GEDCOM Parser (#6)

Jamis Buck wrote:

> 
> 
> Yup, it can. The duplication is because that's the way that the GEDCOM 
> spec was written. The NAME element includes the fullname as a value, 
> with the parts of the name specified as subelements. I imagine the spec 
> was done this way to make it easy to get the fullname without having to 
> search subtrees and concatenate values.
> 
>>
>> And why the embedded pseudo-markup in the value attribute ( e.g., the 
>> use of '/')?
>>
>>    value="Jamis Gordon /Buck/"
> 
> 
> Again, that's the way GEDCOM does it. I imagine it is to make it easier 
> to identify the surname in situations where either (a) the surname is 
> not given (ie, "Jamis Gordon //"), or (b) the surname consists of 
> multiple words (ie, "Dick /Van Dyke/").

Ah.  Still, it comes off as the sort of XML people invent when they want 
to show why XML is hard to work with :).

(As an aside, I think it's SVG or XUL that has attribute values that 
consist of long strings of name=value pairs.  Ick. It's like taking a 
CSV file, wrapping it in start/end tags, and calling it XML.)

Ideally, attribute values should be semantically atomic.

> 
>>
>>
>> Is there a spec for this XML format, or is this deliberately tricky  
>> to make it more challenging?
> 
> 
> No, and yes. ;)
> 
> Honestly, if you don't like the way I've specified the values, feel free 
> to invent your own. I won't be hurt. I was just trying to find a way to 
> represent the GEDCOM-formatted data in XML, and keep the data as close 
> to the original as possible.

I would suggest just normalizing the format, such that there is no 
mixed-markup or data duplication.  value='some /thing/' jut looks wrong 
to me; leave out that attribute and using named elements for each chunk:

  <name>
   <surn>Buck</surn>
   <givn>Jamis Gordon</givn>
  </name>

Values then are always child elements, or the text content of the 
element if the value does not require any additional semantic demarcation.

  <sex>M<sex>


> 
> FWIW, I believe there IS a standard for representing genealogical data 
> in XML. But I can guarantee it will not be a one-to-one mapping between 
> GEDCOM to that format... I figured this would be more fun than poring 
> over volumes of GEDCOM and XML specifications to "get it right".

Quite true.
> 


> Just have fun with it. :) That's the important thing.


Very much so!


Thanks,

James