GEDCOM Worked example - Revision history

Brian: Reverted edits by TroclIcnaz (Talk) to last version by SeanHayes

2008-12-20T21:12:36Z

Reverted edits by TroclIcnaz (Talk) to last version by SeanHayes

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:12, 20 December 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~acsitroalv~~
	'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''		'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''

2008-12-19T15:22:48Z

pasmongetr

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 19 December 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
			acsitroalv
	'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''		'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''

2007-04-19T11:33:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 19 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''		'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''

	Actually this document '''is''' the process. This is a work in progress. think of it as an extended public brainfart if it helps. It is ~~building on~~ some ideas from~~, and will go in the main [[genealogy-formats\|genealogy exploration]] section when done~~		Actually this document '''is part of''' the [[genealogy-formats\|genealogy exploration]] process. This is a work in progress. think of it as an extended public brainfart if it helps. It is simple exploring some ideas from that discussion.
	--		--

2007-04-19T10:15:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:15, 19 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''		'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''

	~~I Know that~~. This is a work in progress. think of it as an extended public brainfart if it helps., it will go in the main [[genealogy-formats\|genealogy exploration]] section when ~~I'm~~ done		Actually this document '''is''' the process. This is a work in progress. think of it as an extended public brainfart if it helps. It is building on some ideas from, and will go in the main [[genealogy-formats\|genealogy exploration]] section when done
	--		--

2007-04-19T10:13:59Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 19 April 2007
Line 193:		Line 193:


	The INDI records could be replaced by hCard records. Need to look at a tag by tag mapping here.		*The INDI records could be replaced by hCard records. Need to look at a tag by tag mapping here.

	This example doesnt use EVENt tags, which might map to hCalendar		*This example doesnt use EVENt tags, which might map to hCalendar

			*The FAM records are the graph structure. This is really what is needed over and above an hCard, along with the more specialised SOURce records which record documentaiton (hCite?).

	~~The FAM records are the graph structure. This is really what is needed over and above an hCard, along with the more specialised SOURce records which record documentaiton (hCite?).~~		*It's basically a linkage structure, made slightly more complicated by the fact that an INDIvidual can appear in more than one FAMily record. e.g. if they remarry. rather than a specific geneaology microformat, maybe a general hGraph structure might be appropriate?

	It's basically a linkage structure, made slightly more complicated by the fact that an INDIvidual can appear in more than one FAMily record. e.g. if they remarry. rather than a specific geneaology microformat, maybe a general hGraph structure might be appropriate?

2007-04-19T10:13:25Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:13, 19 April 2007
Line 195:		Line 195:
	The INDI records could be replaced by hCard records. Need to look at a tag by tag mapping here.		The INDI records could be replaced by hCard records. Need to look at a tag by tag mapping here.

			This example doesnt use EVENt tags, which might map to hCalendar

	The FAM records are the graph structure. This is really what is needed over and above an hCard, along with the more specialised SOURce records which record documentaiton. It's basically a linkage structure, made slightly more complicated by the fact that an INDIvidual can appear in more than one FAMily record. e.g. if they remarry.
			The FAM records are the graph structure. This is really what is needed over and above an hCard, along with the more specialised SOURce records which record documentaiton (hCite?).

			It's basically a linkage structure, made slightly more complicated by the fact that an INDIvidual can appear in more than one FAMily record. e.g. if they remarry. rather than a specific geneaology microformat, maybe a general hGraph structure might be appropriate?

2007-04-19T10:11:03Z

Possible microformat

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:11, 19 April 2007
Line 73:		Line 73:

	== Possible microformat ==		== Possible microformat ==

			The below is a pretty literal translation of the above. GEDCOM uses a hierachical record structure, which maps to XML relatively easily, and also uses links which map reasonably well to id and <a> in HTML. I've done a simple styling here which positions the family grouping. I'll try and get this up on a webserver somewhere soon. This is not really a proposal at this stage, but an exploration to see if a GEDCOM microformat even makes sense.


	<pre>		<pre>
	<nowiki>		<nowiki>

2007-04-19T10:04:36Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:04, 19 April 2007
Line 189:		Line 189:


	The INDI records could be replaced by hCard records:		The INDI records could be replaced by hCard records. Need to look at a tag by tag mapping here.


			The FAM records are the graph structure. This is really what is needed over and above an hCard, along with the more specialised SOURce records which record documentaiton. It's basically a linkage structure, made slightly more complicated by the fact that an INDIvidual can appear in more than one FAMily record. e.g. if they remarry.

2007-04-19T10:00:47Z

2007-04-18T21:50:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:50, 18 April 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''		'''This document is not following the [[process]]. Before proposing a micro(or 'mini')format, please research examples in the wild and derive and implied schema. -- RyanKing'''

	I Know that. This is a work in progress. think of it as an extended public brainfart if it helps., it will go in the main ~~geneaology~~ section when I'm done		I Know that. This is a work in progress. think of it as an extended public brainfart if it helps., it will go in the main [[genealogy-formats\|genealogy exploration]] section when I'm done
	--		--