FamilySearch/gedcomx — Issue #141: Mapping GEDCOMX to the process model
Author: EssyGreen
Created: 2012-02-18 09:51:25+00:00
State: open

As a sanity check it is worth checking that GEDCOMX fulfills the needs for the research process. In an attempt to prevent too much debate on the definition of the research process I am citing the model certified by BCG & ESM (see this link http://www.olliatauburn.org/download/genealogy_research_map.pdf)

How well does GEDCOMX support the data described?

1. Research Goals: Plan, Log, Statement, Question, Hypothesis
- Not at all. Assumed to be beyond the scope?

2. Sources: Originals (including direct copies) and Derivatives (transcripts, extracts and abstracts)
- No way of specifying original vs derivative - see #136 - (or the particular types of either) beyond DC's generic terminology, and hence weakening of provenance.
- *Need a non-abstract class for a Source with specific attributes/properties beyond DC*

3. Information (primary & sceondary)
- =Personas/Facts/Relationships etc in the Record Model? No support for Primary vs Secondary beyond DC's generic terminology
- *Need specific attributes/properties for Primary/Secondary*

4. Citation (link between information and source(s))
- =ResourceReference? In development (see #126). Seems to be confused with Evidence.

5. Evidence (direct, indirect, negative)
- =Persons/Facts/Relationships etc in the Conclusion Model? No Evidence object defined - all are considered to be Conclusions. No concept of hypotheses to enable conflict resolution.

6. Proof agument
- =Attribution. Minimally covered (as a text field + Confidence level) but is applied to anything (rather than referring to a particular set of evidence in a particular context) so ambiguous.