* GEDCOM 7.0

The place to post news about genealogy products and services that might be of interest to other Family Historian users.
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 1254
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

GEDCOM 7.0

Post by AdrianBruce » 20 Feb 2021 13:10

OK - I never thought we'd see the day. But maybe I was wrong...

It appears that FamilySearch are poised to announce a Release Candidate for GEDCOM 7. Virtually no details yet but...

Thanks to Louis Kessler's blog post on https://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=3724, which he hopes to update as information is found.
Len-seven-592526.jpg
Len-seven-592526.jpg (16.18 KiB) Viewed 2871 times
(Couldn't resist - Len Goodman reacts to GEDCOM 7 announcement?)
Adrian

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21805
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by tatewise » 20 Feb 2021 13:45

Reading the posting by James Tanner, two things caught my attention:
(1) he overlooks GEDCOM 5.5.1 completely!
(2) he suggests that date phrases, ranges and periods did not exist before!
I wonder how long it will take for products to adopt GEDCOM 7.0 since few have fully adopted GEDCOM 5.5/5.5.1 yet.
Forgive my cynicism.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
Gowermick
Megastar
Posts: 1120
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 07:22
Family Historian: V7
Location: Swansea

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by Gowermick » 20 Feb 2021 14:36

AdrianBruce wrote:
20 Feb 2021 13:10
Len-seven-592526.jpg
(Couldn't resist - Len Goodman reacts to GEDCOM 7 announcement?)
Adrian,
Len’s GGrandmother was my 2’GGrandmother’s sister. Small world :D :D
Mike Loney

Using FH 7.0.7with CC 6.7.37 Windows 10 Home
Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 1254
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by AdrianBruce » 20 Feb 2021 17:57

tatewise wrote:
20 Feb 2021 13:45
... he suggests that date phrases, ranges and periods did not exist before! ...
The only way I could make any sense of that was to wonder if "Between his marriage and the start of WW1" was the sort of thing that was meant.
tatewise wrote:
20 Feb 2021 13:45
... I wonder how long it will take for products to adopt GEDCOM 7.0 since few have fully adopted GEDCOM 5.5/5.5.1 yet. Forgive my cynicism.
That's not cynicism, that's realism. But it kinda alludes to the reason I assumed that FS would never touch GEDCOM again - what on earth (or in heaven) is in it for the LDS Church? They have GEDCOM X which is supposed to define or inform the API between desktop programs and the massive online FamilySearch FamilyTree. That "fits where it touches" since there are features in FSFT that, so far as I know, aren't in GEDCOM X (such as user discussions), and features in the GEDCOM X definition (such as dates against names) that aren't in FSFT.

Hmm - they must be planning something. We'll have to wait and see...
Adrian

User avatar
David2416
Famous
Posts: 216
Joined: 12 Nov 2017 16:37
Family Historian: V7
Location: Suffolk UK

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by David2416 » 20 Feb 2021 19:09

An announcement at Rootstech maybe

avatar
JohnnyCee
Diamond
Posts: 51
Joined: 14 Nov 2016 13:44
Family Historian: V7
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by JohnnyCee » 24 Feb 2021 11:07

tatewise wrote:
20 Feb 2021 13:45
Reading the posting by James Tanner, two things caught my attention:
(1) he overlooks GEDCOM 5.5.1 completely!
(2) he suggests that date phrases, ranges and periods did not exist before!
I wonder how long it will take for products to adopt GEDCOM 7.0 since few have fully adopted GEDCOM 5.5/5.5.1 yet.
Forgive my cynicism.
Regarding dates, James is indicating that all dates, including date ranges, can now includes date phrases. He is not suggesting that date ranges and periods are new.

User avatar
Jane
Site Admin
Posts: 8144
Joined: 01 Nov 2002 15:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Somerset, England
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by Jane » 24 Feb 2021 11:35

There are two Gedcom 7 seminars on RootsTech if anyone is interested.

RootsTech Presentation (GEDCOM Series Part 1): “GEDCOM is Alive and Getting Smarter”

When: Beginning February 25, 2021 (the start of RootsTech)
Where: On the roostech.org site search for the above presentation title



RootsTech Presentation (GEDCOM Series Part 2: “Technical Aspects of GEDCOM 7”

When: Beginning February 25, 2021 (the start of RootsTech)
Where: On the roostech.org site search for the above presentation title
Jane
My Family History : My Photography "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21805
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by tatewise » 24 Feb 2021 16:16

I have skimmed through GEDCOM 7.0 candidate and it seems very reasonable with clarification of many GEDCOM points.
The current Release Candidate 7.0.0-rc1 appears to be available at:
As a web page: https://gedcom.io/specifications/GEDCOM7rc.html
As a PDF file: https://gedcom.io/specifications/gedcom7-rc.pdf
The following is my summary:
  1. Custom Events (EVEN) and Attributes (FACT) are valid in both Individual & Family records and both support 'values'.
  2. The NO event allows non-events to be specified, e.g. NO MARR means no marriage.
  3. Facts support Sort Dates (SDATE) and Dates support TIME.
  4. Facts support Associations (shared Fact Witnesses) using ASSO.ROLE tags instead of _SHAR.ROLE tags.
  5. Many structures such as date, age, role, etc, support a Phrase (PHRASE) to add meaning.
    e.g. any DATE can have a PHRASE or a fact association PHRASE can name a person not in the database.
  6. Place format (PLAC.FORM) can be defined such as "City, County, State, Country".
  7. Family as Child relationships can have Challenged, Disproven, or Proven status.
  8. Notes (NOTE) support Citations as in GEDCOM 5.5 but also Comments (COMM) are allowed without Citations.
  9. Notes are either plain text or use HTML format (MIME) but not Microsoft Rich Text Format.
  10. Media file links allow both local file paths and Internet URL. There are no Local Media Objects!
  11. Media allow CROP coordinates similar to FH face/detail frames.
  12. Records allow a creation date-time (CREA) and a change date-time (CHAN).
  13. GEDZIP defines how to ZIP GEDCOM and Media together.
  14. Line and field length restrictions removed and any text field can have multiple lines (CONT).
  15. Ability to provide a specification of custom product extension tags (HEAD.SCHMA).
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
Valkrider
Megastar
Posts: 1387
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 19:03
Family Historian: V7
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by Valkrider » 24 Feb 2021 16:29

@Mike

Where did you find the link to the spec I have been unable to find it?

Done some more searching and now found it so please ignore.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21805
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by tatewise » 24 Feb 2021 19:17

I have looked at the RootsTech presentation slide decks via the https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/ ... ng-smarter Sessions Downloadable Resources and among other things they suggest FH has been involved, so what do CP and Simon know about this unexpected development?

Most of the GEDCOM 7.0 specification fits well with FH V7 GEDCOM 5.5.1 with Sort Date, Fact Witness & Media extensions.
But if aware that Notes were to specify using HTML then why opt for MS Rich Text Format?

I wonder where it leaves https://fhiso.org/ that has taken a long time to achieve not very much?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
Valkrider
Megastar
Posts: 1387
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 19:03
Family Historian: V7
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by Valkrider » 24 Feb 2021 21:45

tatewise wrote:
24 Feb 2021 19:17
I have looked at the RootsTech presentation slide decks via the https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/ ... ng-smarter Sessions Downloadable Resources and among other things they suggest FH has been involved, so what do CP and Simon know about this unexpected development?

Most of the GEDCOM 7.0 specification fits well with FH V7 GEDCOM 5.5.1 with Sort Date, Fact Witness & Media extensions.
But if aware that Notes were to specify using HTML then why opt for MS Rich Text Format?

I wonder where it leaves https://fhiso.org/ that has taken a long time to achieve not very much?
Mike

Simon / CP are not listed in the contributors but Tony Procter who was / is involved with Fhiso is in the specification document that I found.

The fact that you can add negative events is an interesting addition as well as day and month without a year, both are going to give me some challenges with my plugin. However, I suspect it will be a while before anyone adopts Gedcom V7. Like you I am surprised about the Rich Text vs HTML in FH v7.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21805
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by tatewise » 24 Feb 2021 22:17

BTW: The only way for a date without a year is a blank DATE with a PHRASE. See Page 21 at the end of 2.4. Date

The GEDCOM 7.0 spec Page 86 lists among other Contributors:
Luther Tychonievich, FHISO and University of Virginia
Tony Proctor, Proctor.net
Luther is Chair of FHISO Board and Tony is not on the Board currently.

The slides for both sessions list Key Contributors with Desktop Providers: including Family Historian:
KeyContributors1.png
KeyContributors1.png (82.39 KiB) Viewed 2465 times
KeyContributors2.png
KeyContributors2.png (100.64 KiB) Viewed 2465 times
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
BillH
Megastar
Posts: 1682
Joined: 31 May 2010 03:40
Family Historian: V7
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by BillH » 25 Feb 2021 17:56

I went out to watch the sessions on GEDCOM 7 on RootsTech today and it looks like they are no longer available.

Bill

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21805
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by tatewise » 25 Feb 2021 20:15

Yes, I had hoped to see the live streams today, but missed them.
Maybe they will be available as video streams sometime later.
However, judging by the Presenter Notes on the Slides they were not going to be very technical.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 1254
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by AdrianBruce » 25 Feb 2021 20:44

Louis Kessler's blog item now points to two YouTube presentations that presumably are the RootsTech presentations. The first, as indicated, is hardly technical. (And still doesn't explain - why?) Not looked at the second yet (because, now I find, it says "Private". Hmm).
Adrian

User avatar
BillH
Megastar
Posts: 1682
Joined: 31 May 2010 03:40
Family Historian: V7
Location: Washington State, USA

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by BillH » 25 Feb 2021 21:43

I just tried both links and both put up an error:

Video unavailable
This video is private

On rootstech I had both of these added to my playlist and both got deleted. Seems like they have been pulled from the conference.

Louis Kessler states on his blog:
Gordon Clarke’s two presentations inexplicably no longer are available from RootsTech Connect. The YouTube videos at the links above (Feb 24) are unavailable as well.
The gedcom.io site also became inaccessible.
I wonder why? Is FamilySearch backing off announcing it now?

Bill

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 1254
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by AdrianBruce » 25 Feb 2021 22:47

Cock up? Or conspiracy? ;)
Adrian

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21805
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by tatewise » 25 Feb 2021 22:52

Also the two links I posted from his blog for the GEDCOM 7.0 spec no longer work. Strange!
Glad I downloaded the PDF if anyone is interested but too large to attach here.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
Valkrider
Megastar
Posts: 1387
Joined: 04 Jun 2012 19:03
Family Historian: V7
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by Valkrider » 26 Feb 2021 07:44

Also gedcom.io now shows unathorised access and github where it is supposed to be hosted says unknown. Looks like it has been pulled for some reason. I also have the pdf if anyone wants it.

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 2945
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 26 Feb 2021 07:46

Tamura is claiming on Twitter (not sure how seriously) that it plagiarises their work...

User avatar
Jane
Site Admin
Posts: 8144
Joined: 01 Nov 2002 15:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Somerset, England
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by Jane » 26 Feb 2021 09:07

I suspect that the draft was not ready for public consumption and should not have been in the public domain yet.
Jane
My Family History : My Photography "Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad."

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21805
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by tatewise » 26 Feb 2021 11:13

The GEDCOM 7.0 Release Candidate spec is at https://webtrees.net/gedcom/

A Google Search for exactly "GEDCOM 7.0" finds loads of postings (which is how I found the above link) and some postings that have been removed are captured in the Wayback Machine.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
NickWalker
Megastar
Posts: 1540
Joined: 02 Jan 2004 17:39
Family Historian: V7
Location: Lancashire, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by NickWalker » 26 Feb 2021 11:31

The HTML stuff is very vague really, e.g. how would you support fonts and font sizes. Presumably inline CSS, but some vendors might use the deprecated font tags. The guidance just suggests some very basic HTML (bold, etc.) but then it would be up to the different providers to add extra functionality so getting any kind of consistency/compatibility across software vendors would be difficult I think.
Nick Walker
Ancestral Sources Developer

http://www.ancestralsources.com

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 21805
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by tatewise » 26 Feb 2021 13:20

Agreed that the current MIME HTML specification is incomplete. See page 67/68.
It cross-refers to HTML 4.5 https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/ ... ntics.html which may help.
However, it shows the thinking of key players such as FamilySearch, FHISO, Ancestral Quest, Ancestry & FTM 2019, Legacy, MyHeritage, RootsMagic and others that had representatives as contributors. See page 86.

Of all the products I've investigated for my Export Gedcom File plugin, the ones that support any form of formatted text in their GEDCOM all used HTML. GedStarPro, Legacy & RootsMagic only allow bold, italic, underline, strike & super/subscript that are equivalent to Rich Text Format, but six others (FindMyPast, MyHeritage, RootsFinder, TNG, TribalPages & ZoomPast) support a fairly complete HTML set.
I used inline CSS such as <span style="font-family:Courier,modern;"><span style="font-size:16pt;">text</span></span> for fonts and font size.

A problem with the FH Rich Text Format in the GEDCOM file is the default font and font size is not specified.
All font sizes are relative <fs="+4"> <fs="-4"> and meaningless with no default, so my plugin uses 10pt as the default.
Another problem with Rich Text Format is the tags are not in nested open & close pairs, which makes the conversion to nested HTML pairs something of a challenge.
For products that don't use a Windows platform, Microsoft Rich Text Format may pose a problem whereas HTML is universal.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
NickWalker
Megastar
Posts: 1540
Joined: 02 Jan 2004 17:39
Family Historian: V7
Location: Lancashire, UK
Contact:

Re: GEDCOM 7.0

Post by NickWalker » 26 Feb 2021 13:28

I don't disagree regarding your general comments regarding RTF/HTML.

I think not having a default font and using relative font sizes is very useful because it means the user can specify the font they would like the data to be reported in, irrespective of how it was recorded. So in some reports you might want a small font size, in others a larger size and then any headings in your text will resized relatively accordingly.

The user controls the default font and font size via the Family Historian properties so can't your plugin use that? (I don't know if plugins can access that information).
Nick Walker
Ancestral Sources Developer

http://www.ancestralsources.com

Post Reply