I want software vendors to:
(1) continue to support import/export GEDCOM last standard
(2) create USEFUL enhancements via NEW tags (Custom tags beginning with ‘_’ underscore)
(3) add functionality based upon the new tags
(4) Go to RootsTech lobby for their new tags to be added to GEDCOM standard (thus removing the ‘_’)
(5) RootsTech attendees vote on vendor tags to be included in GEDCOM
(6) RootsTech attendees vote on USER promoted tags to be dropped, altered, moved, created in GEDCOM which go into a provisional CUSTOM tags for the next years vote.
(7) Vendors attempt to utilize USER promoted tags where it makes sense for them and their software and is viable

Both VENDORS and USERS need to ‘Own’ GEDCOM and FAMILYSEARCH just become the ‘ISO-like’ standard maintainer and publisher on the basis of RootsTech annual votes.

The GEDCOM standard needs to evolve and grow again. What is it over a decade out of date?

If FamilySearch does not agree, then we should form our own Genealogy/Technology conference and create a new GEDCOM standard (GEDCOM++ anyone) that is vendor neutral and allows users to vote annually on new features proposed by vendors, users, genealogy societies, and other industry proponents.

The need for interchangeability of genealogy data to allow movement for users to new software is good for all. Also, the ability for separate genealogy researchers to trade genealogy data via export/import must be protected. Finally, we MUST NOT lose old gedcom data from prior researchers who may have died, but their GEDCOM lives on, somewhere on the Internet (ex. Ancestry.com or RootsWeb or etc.).

GENEALOGISTS must learn the GEDCOM tags and understand their implications, SOFTWARE vendors must educate genealogists on their tags and how that supports current or future features.

-–Stanczyk

I believe Ancestry is particularly bad at putting their own spin on interpreting GEDCOM fields, and it is VERY difficult to import their data with any sensible results (importing into Family Tree Maker aside – they have the inside scoop))

I won’t repeat all the arguments about GEDCOM limitations here, but basically its a bit long in the tooth and has been for years. There are several efforts out there to try to address its limitations, but for some those efforts are taking too longs, and unless you just want to see developers push out revisions to existing software applications the old adage just can’t be carved in stone anymore.

There is a new generation of software apps coming that are trying to fill gaps left by the current software offerings and they can’t afford to wait for a new standard. So they do what they can, support the parts of the GEDCOM that make sense so that there can be SOME data sharing, and wish their were a true standard.