Lee,
Citing telecommunications as an example of vendors driven to interoperability is a poor comparison. First, we're talking about software compatibility. I cited examples of major software programs that are not fully compatible. Second, there is nothing inherent in the market to drive genealogy software vendors toward interoperability. There is only the customer.
It would be fair, I think, to make comparisons between commercial software market segments and other software market segments, but telecom? I've been a Bellhead for 15 years, so I know from personal experience that carriers necessarily concern themselves with interoperability testing because we don't manufacturer the equipment we use. It's a requirement of providing the service we do (and the law). This is a wholly different scenario from talking about software compatibility.
Lee wrote:
"It is trivial to get GEDCOM interoperability:
1) Develop a rigorous test suite containing a number of GEDCOM files that exercise the various parts of the specification.
2) Run the GEDCOM files through the import, data manipulation and export functions of the products in the market (at each new release).
3) Prominently display the results on the internet, preferably at a site held in high regard.
4) Shame and reward the vendors as they have earned, and encourage customers to do the same. $$$ talks."
Some of the very people involved in this conversation (particularly Russ) are (and have been) involved in just the sort of testing that you're suggesting, and their results are visible on the web for anyone to see. It's not as if the community of users has been sitting idly by waiting for software vendors to do this on their own. Frankly we all know better.
I believe it's a bit naive to think that vendors can be shamed into interoperability. Even if there existed a grass roots movement in the user-community to get the word out about the importance of interoperability, the vast majority of users aren't that sophisticated. They're hobbyist consumers making a trivial purpose, not a CIO making an investment in a company's infrastructure. A small percentage of them might read some superficial reviews, but the rest, I suspect, make a purchasing decision more whimsically. Educating would-be consumers so they can shape the marketplace to better meet their needs is not trivial. If it were, MS Office would have died a long time ago.
Lee wrote:
"My conclusion is that, according to historical evidence and current activities, GEDCOM is not driven, either by one dominant organization or a group of industry leaders, to be a modern, high-quality, ubiquitous specification with strict adherence by industry participants. It's obvious."
This just isn't correct. GEDCOM is the product of FamilySearch (the LDS Church), a highly respected and dominant organization in the sphere of genealogy. Just look at all of your source citations on Ancestry and see where the vast majority of their record collections come from.
But, even if they are now actively interested in pushing for a new standard, that can only accomplish so much. Software vendors will always be driven to provide *import* compatibility, but until they have a financial motive for providing export compatibility, it only makes it easier for customers to leave. Why bother?
Until this business model changes, I doubt genealogy software will ever be fully interoperable. And, even if every genealogy program available today were 100% compatible with GEDCOM 5.5.1, it would still be a far cry from what any intermediate to advanced genealogist needs. For some (not you obviously), needs trump portability.
"Did you READ the page you linked on tamurajones.net on GEDCOM X? Visit the github site. One person was working on it until 7 days ago, now there seem to be two."
Yes, of course I read the page I provided the link to. The point was that he mentions that GEDCOM XML is from FamilySearch. I thought that was more visible there than where it's buried in the about section of gedcomx.org. Anyway, the point is FamilySearch. That ain't a one or two man show.
Citing telecommunications as an example of vendors driven to interoperability is a poor comparison. First, we're talking about software compatibility. I cited examples of major software programs that are not fully compatible. Second, there is nothing inherent in the market to drive genealogy software vendors toward interoperability. There is only the customer.
It would be fair, I think, to make comparisons between commercial software market segments and other software market segments, but telecom? I've been a Bellhead for 15 years, so I know from personal experience that carriers necessarily concern themselves with interoperability testing because we don't manufacturer the equipment we use. It's a requirement of providing the service we do (and the law). This is a wholly different scenario from talking about software compatibility.
Lee wrote:
"It is trivial to get GEDCOM interoperability:
1) Develop a rigorous test suite containing a number of GEDCOM files that exercise the various parts of the specification.
2) Run the GEDCOM files through the import, data manipulation and export functions of the products in the market (at each new release).
3) Prominently display the results on the internet, preferably at a site held in high regard.
4) Shame and reward the vendors as they have earned, and encourage customers to do the same. $$$ talks."
Some of the very people involved in this conversation (particularly Russ) are (and have been) involved in just the sort of testing that you're suggesting, and their results are visible on the web for anyone to see. It's not as if the community of users has been sitting idly by waiting for software vendors to do this on their own. Frankly we all know better.
I believe it's a bit naive to think that vendors can be shamed into interoperability. Even if there existed a grass roots movement in the user-community to get the word out about the importance of interoperability, the vast majority of users aren't that sophisticated. They're hobbyist consumers making a trivial purpose, not a CIO making an investment in a company's infrastructure. A small percentage of them might read some superficial reviews, but the rest, I suspect, make a purchasing decision more whimsically. Educating would-be consumers so they can shape the marketplace to better meet their needs is not trivial. If it were, MS Office would have died a long time ago.
Lee wrote:
"My conclusion is that, according to historical evidence and current activities, GEDCOM is not driven, either by one dominant organization or a group of industry leaders, to be a modern, high-quality, ubiquitous specification with strict adherence by industry participants. It's obvious."
This just isn't correct. GEDCOM is the product of FamilySearch (the LDS Church), a highly respected and dominant organization in the sphere of genealogy. Just look at all of your source citations on Ancestry and see where the vast majority of their record collections come from.
But, even if they are now actively interested in pushing for a new standard, that can only accomplish so much. Software vendors will always be driven to provide *import* compatibility, but until they have a financial motive for providing export compatibility, it only makes it easier for customers to leave. Why bother?
Until this business model changes, I doubt genealogy software will ever be fully interoperable. And, even if every genealogy program available today were 100% compatible with GEDCOM 5.5.1, it would still be a far cry from what any intermediate to advanced genealogist needs. For some (not you obviously), needs trump portability.
"Did you READ the page you linked on tamurajones.net on GEDCOM X? Visit the github site. One person was working on it until 7 days ago, now there seem to be two."
Yes, of course I read the page I provided the link to. The point was that he mentions that GEDCOM XML is from FamilySearch. I thought that was more visible there than where it's buried in the about section of gedcomx.org. Anyway, the point is FamilySearch. That ain't a one or two man show.