No subject


Sun Oct 17 21:38:36 MDT 2010


consumers. Good to know what is available, but what I am proposing is =
that the professional genealogists take the bull by the horns and tell, =
formally, the vendors what they need to be offering. With no sales pitch =
interaction. Just technological feasibility.

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.=20



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.




------=_NextPart_000_0440_01CB8022.753E6D60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=3Dltr>
<DIV dir=3Dltr>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: =
12pt">
<DIV>John,</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>When you use the term =E2=80=9Cprofessional genealogist,=E2=80=9D =
do you actually mean=20
something more specific?&nbsp; The vendors are themselves, in at least =
several=20
cases, =E2=80=9Cprofessional genealogists=E2=80=9D and APG =
members.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>Michael=20
Hait<BR>michael.hait at hotmail.com<BR>http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com</DI=
V>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: =
none">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style=3D"font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A =
title=3Djohn at jytangledweb.org=20
href=3D"mailto:john at jytangledweb.org">John</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:13 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=3DElissa at PowellGenealogy.com=20
href=3D"mailto:Elissa at PowellGenealogy.com">Elissa Scalise Powell, CG</A> =
; <A=20
title=3Dapgpubliclist at apgen.org=20
href=3D"mailto:apgpubliclist at apgen.org">apgpubliclist at apgen.org</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APG Public List] Genealogy Program=20
Specifications</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; =
COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: =
none">I=20
just read about this on line. Although valuable, it isn't what I had in=20
mind.<BR><BR>From what I see the vendors are dominant, pushing their =
products at=20
consumers. Good to know what is available, but what I am proposing is =
that the=20
professional genealogists take the bull by the horns and tell, formally, =
the=20
vendors what they need to be offering. With no sales pitch interaction. =
Just=20
technological feasibility.<BR><BR>In my experience, vendors love to hear =

feedback, and then just offer what they feel like anyway.<BR><BR>What I =
propose=20
needs to be a body where professional genealogists are in the drivers =
seat. Not=20
the vendors. We all see how that is working out. =
;-)<BR><BR>John<BR><BR><BR>Sent=20
from my Droid X.<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: "Elissa =
Scalise=20
Powell, CG" &lt;Elissa at PowellGenealogy.com&gt;<BR>To: 'John'=20
&lt;john at jytangledweb.org&gt;, apgpubliclist at apgen.org<BR>Sent: Tue, 09 =
Nov 2010=20
14:51<BR>Subject: RE: [APG Public List] Genealogy Program=20
Specifications<BR><BR>This sounds like the newly revisioned RootsTech =
conference=20
which will be<BR>held in SLC in February. They encourage new ideas =
pitched to=20
developers. It<BR>sounds like you would find kindred souls=20
there.<BR><BR><BR><BR>-- Elissa in Pittsburgh<BR><BR><BR><BR>Elissa =
Scalise=20
Powell, CG<BR><BR>www.PowellGenealogy.com<BR><BR>CG and Certified =
Genealogist=20
are Service Marks of the Board for<BR>Certification of Genealogists, =
used under=20
license by board certificants<BR>after periodic evaluations by the =
Board.=20
<BR><BR><BR><BR>From: On Behalf Of John<BR>Sent: Tuesday, November 09, =
2010 2:25=20
PM<BR><BR><BR><BR>Is there a professional genealogy body that convenes =
and=20
develops<BR>specifications that genealogy programs need to offer?<BR>It =
should=20
have vendor representatives, but the body itself must be<BR>independent =
of=20
them.<BR>It should be composed of individuals with credentials, either=20
genealogical<BR>and/or technological.<BR>They should develop a draft of =
required=20
features and make it public for<BR>comment and review. Similar to the =
RFC=20
reports developed for specifying<BR>computer technologies. Vendors then =
program=20
to those specifications.<BR>Good ideas from vendors and their existing =
programs=20
can be adopted. But the<BR>bar can be set high. I'm sure professional=20
genealogists have a wish list for<BR>every program they use. How about =
making=20
one universal wish list, and maybe<BR>existing vendors will program to =
it. Or a=20
new start up will.<BR>And someone could do a consumer reports like =
evaluation of=20
how well various<BR>vendors meet the critera. And where they =
fail.<BR><BR>Is it=20
worth advancing this idea?<BR><BR>Such a team could recommend GEDCOM =
replacement=20
specifications, or at least<BR>attempt to get an intellectual consensus. =

Recommend multiplatform ability<BR>via modern computer technologies =
(maybe too=20
ambitious, but worthy of a<BR>discussion). And much more. I'll stop here =
for=20
now.<BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0440_01CB8022.753E6D60--



More information about the APGPublicList mailing list