No subject


Sun Oct 17 21:38:36 MDT 2010


rs. Good to know what is available, but what I am proposing is that the pro=
fessional genealogists take the bull by the horns and tell, formally, the v=
endors 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 t=
hey feel like anyway.

What I propose needs to be a body where professional genealogists are in th=
e 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 fo=
r
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_10_1180320448.1289334715159
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

One can wear two hats, but the problem of conflict of interest needs to be =
minimized. (standards vs. vested interest in how their product does it toda=
y).<br/><br/>John<br/><br/><br/>-----Original Message-----<br/>From: Michae=
l Hait &lt;michael.hait at hotmail.com&gt;<br/>To: John &lt;john at jytangledweb.=
org&gt;, &quot;Elissa Scalise Powell, CG&quot; &lt;Elissa at PowellGenealogy.c=
om&gt;, apgpubliclist at apgen.org<br/>Sent: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:26<br/>Subjec=
t: Re: [APG Public List] Genealogy Program Specifications<br/><br/>John,<br=
/><br/>When you use the term =E2=80=9Cprofessional genealogist,=E2=80=9D do=
 you actually mean something more specific?  The vendors are themselves, in=
 at least several cases, =E2=80=9Cprofessional genealogists=E2=80=9D and AP=
G members.<br/><br/><br/><br/>Michael Hait<br/>michael.hait at hotmail.com<br/=
>http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com<br/><br/>From: John <br/>Sent: Tuesday, =
November 09, 2010 3:13 PM<br/>To: Elissa Scalise Powell, CG ; apgpubliclist=
@apgen.org <br/>Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Genealogy Program Specificat=
ions<br/><br/>I just read about this on line. Although valuable, it isn&#03=
9;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 wh=
at I am proposing is that the professional genealogists take the bull by th=
e horns and tell, formally, the vendors what they need to be offering. With=
 no sales pitch interaction. Just technological feasibility.<br/><br/>In my=
 experience, vendors love to hear feedback, and then just offer what they f=
eel like anyway.<br/><br/>What I propose needs to be a body where professio=
nal genealogists are in the drivers seat. Not the vendors. We all see how t=
hat is working out. ;-)<br/><br/>John<br/><br/><br/>Sent from my Droid X.<b=
r/><br/>-----Original Message-----<br/>From: &quot;Elissa Scalise Powell, C=
G&quot; &lt;Elissa at PowellGenealogy.com&gt;<br/>To: &#039;John&#039; &lt;joh=
n at jytangledweb.org&gt;, apgpubliclist at apgen.org<br/>Sent: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 =
14:51<br/>Subject: RE: [APG Public List] Genealogy Program Specifications<b=
r/><br/>This sounds like the newly revisioned RootsTech conference which wi=
ll be<br/>held in SLC in February. They encourage new ideas pitched to deve=
lopers. It<br/>sounds like you would find kindred souls there.<br/><br/><br=
/><br/>-- Elissa in Pittsburgh<br/><br/><br/><br/>Elissa Scalise Powell, CG=
<br/><br/>www.PowellGenealogy.com<br/><br/>CG and Certified Genealogist are=
 Service Marks of the Board for<br/>Certification of Genealogists, used und=
er license by board certificants<br/>after periodic evaluations by the Boar=
d. <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 convenes and develops<br/>specifications that genealogy programs need =
to offer?<br/>It should have vendor representatives, but the body itself mu=
st be<br/>independent of them.<br/>It should be composed of individuals wit=
h credentials, either genealogical<br/>and/or technological.<br/>They shoul=
d develop a draft of required features and make it public for<br/>comment a=
nd review. Similar to the RFC reports developed for specifying<br/>computer=
 technologies. Vendors then program to those specifications.<br/>Good ideas=
 from vendors and their existing programs can be adopted. But the<br/>bar c=
an be set high. I&#039;m sure professional genealogists have a wish list fo=
r<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 someone could do a consumer reports like evaluation of how well variou=
s<br/>vendors meet the critera. And where they fail.<br/><br/>Is it worth a=
dvancing this idea?<br/><br/>Such a team could recommend GEDCOM replacement=
 specifications, or at least<br/>attempt to get an intellectual consensus. =
Recommend multiplatform ability<br/>via modern computer technologies (maybe=
 too ambitious, but worthy of a<br/>discussion). And much more. I&#039;ll s=
top here for now.<br/><br/><br/><br/>
------=_Part_10_1180320448.1289334715159--


More information about the APGPublicList mailing list