No subject


Sun Oct 17 21:38:36 MDT 2010


In my experience, vendors love to hear feedback, and then just offer what they feel like anyway.

What I propose needs to be a body where professional genealogists are in the drivers seat. Not the vendors. We all see how that is working out. ;-)

John


Sent from my Droid X.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Elissa Scalise Powell, CG" <Elissa at PowellGenealogy.com>
To: 'John' <john at jytangledweb.org>, apgpubliclist at apgen.org
Sent: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:51
Subject: RE: [APG Public List] Genealogy Program Specifications

This sounds like the newly revisioned RootsTech conference which will be
held in SLC in February. They encourage new ideas pitched to developers. It
sounds like you would find kindred souls there.

 

-- Elissa in Pittsburgh

 

Elissa Scalise Powell, CG

www.PowellGenealogy.com

CG and Certified Genealogist are Service Marks of the Board for
Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants
after periodic evaluations by the Board. 

 

From: On Behalf Of John
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 2:25 PM



Is there a professional genealogy body that convenes and develops
specifications that genealogy programs need to offer?
It should have vendor representatives, but the body itself must be
independent of them.
It should be composed of individuals with credentials, either genealogical
and/or technological.
They should develop a draft of required features and make it public for
comment and review. Similar to the RFC reports developed for specifying
computer technologies. Vendors then program to those specifications.
Good ideas from vendors and their existing programs can be adopted. But the
bar can be set high. I'm sure professional genealogists have a wish list for
every program they use. How about making one universal wish list, and maybe
existing vendors will program to it. Or a new start up will.
And someone could do a consumer reports like evaluation of how well various
vendors meet the critera. And where they fail.

Is it worth advancing this idea?

Such a team could recommend GEDCOM replacement specifications, or at least
attempt to get an intellectual consensus. Recommend multiplatform ability
via modern computer technologies (maybe too ambitious, but worthy of a
discussion). And much more. I'll stop here for now.




------=_Part_6_1178254272.1289333608382
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I just read about this on line. Although valuable, it isn&#039;t what I had=
 in mind.<br/><br/>From what I see the vendors are dominant, pushing their =
products at consumers. Good to know what is available, but what I am propos=
ing is that the professional genealogists take the bull by the horns and te=
ll, formally, the vendors what they need to be offering. With no sales pitc=
h interaction. Just technological feasibility.<br/><br/>In my experience, v=
endors love to hear feedback, and then just offer what they feel like anywa=
y.<br/><br/>What I propose needs to be a body where professional genealogis=
ts are in the drivers seat. Not the vendors. We all see how that is working=
 out. ;-)<br/><br/>John<br/><br/><br/>Sent from my Droid X.<br/><br/>-----O=
riginal Message-----<br/>From: &quot;Elissa Scalise Powell, CG&quot; &lt;El=
issa at PowellGenealogy.com&gt;<br/>To: &#039;John&#039; &lt;john at jytangledweb=
.org&gt;, apgpubliclist at apgen.org<br/>Sent: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:51<br/>Subj=
ect: RE: [APG Public List] Genealogy Program Specifications<br/><br/>This s=
ounds like the newly revisioned RootsTech conference which will be<br/>held=
 in SLC in February. They encourage new ideas pitched to developers. It<br/=
>sounds like you would find kindred souls there.<br/><br/> <br/><br/>-- Eli=
ssa in Pittsburgh<br/><br/> <br/><br/>Elissa Scalise Powell, CG<br/><br/>ww=
w.PowellGenealogy.com<br/><br/>CG and Certified Genealogist are Service Mar=
ks of the Board for<br/>Certification of Genealogists, used under license b=
y board certificants<br/>after periodic evaluations by the Board. <br/><br/=
> <br/><br/>From: On Behalf Of John<br/>Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 2:=
25 PM<br/><br/><br/><br/>Is there a professional genealogy body that conven=
es and develops<br/>specifications that genealogy programs need to offer?<b=
r/>It should have vendor representatives, but the body itself must be<br/>i=
ndependent of them.<br/>It should be composed of individuals with credentia=
ls, either genealogical<br/>and/or technological.<br/>They should develop a=
 draft of required features and make it public for<br/>comment and review. =
Similar to the RFC reports developed for specifying<br/>computer technologi=
es. Vendors then program to those specifications.<br/>Good ideas from vendo=
rs and their existing programs can be adopted. But the<br/>bar can be set h=
igh. I&#039;m sure professional genealogists have a wish list for<br/>every=
 program they use. How about making one universal wish list, and maybe<br/>=
existing vendors will program to it. Or a new start up will.<br/>And someon=
e could do a consumer reports like evaluation of how well various<br/>vendo=
rs meet the critera. And where they fail.<br/><br/>Is it worth advancing th=
is idea?<br/><br/>Such a team could recommend GEDCOM replacement specificat=
ions, or at least<br/>attempt to get an intellectual consensus. Recommend m=
ultiplatform ability<br/>via modern computer technologies (maybe too ambiti=
ous, but worthy of a<br/>discussion). And much more. I&#039;ll stop here fo=
r now.<br/><br/><br/><br/>
------=_Part_6_1178254272.1289333608382--


More information about the APGPublicList mailing list