Talk:GEPS 001: Relationship type event link

From Gramps
Jump to: navigation, search

An Australian view of proposed relationship types

I can see this concept is very complicated, partly because of the diversity of cultures. I'd like to discuss the proposed start and stop events in the context of Australian culture. My purpose is simply to introduce other cultural differences that may need to be considered when determining the best solution to the problem.

I am assuming that "Marriage" is intended to refer to the religious version. If not, then some of what I say will not make sense.

Marriage and Civil Marriage are generally regarded as the same thing. If one has a "Church wedding" then both religious and legal marriage happen at the same time. If one marries without a church wedding, then there is no religious marriage, only a legal one.

Both legal and religious marriages can end in annulment. Divorce is a legal ending, that may or may not be recognised by the religion.

If I understand correctly what is meant by Civil Union, these do not generally exist in Australia (unless laws have been enacted in the last year or two in some states - there has been discussion of it).

Once a couple have cohabitated for six months, they have a legal relationship which is not as legally strong as marriage. The legal bond grows stronger over time. After 5 years cohabitation, the legal binding is similar to full legal marriage. One could argue that sometime after 6 months of cohabitation the couple has entered a civil union.

I do not think the proposed implementation addresses these issues well. However I fear that anything that addresses clearly these issues will fail to work well for one or more other cultures, which would be just as bad, if not worse. So while I have issues with the proposal, I don't have a better solution to offer.

--Annej 09:25, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

On basing design on GEDCOM...

My preference would be to ignore what GEDCOM says when discussing how GRAMPS should work. Perhaps there has been an earlier commandment that GEDCOM should be followed as much as possible, in which case my current comment is out of line. However I believe in ignoring GEDCOM for several reasons:

  • It is an old standard
  • It has never been regarded as a well thought out standard
  • It is continually berated by those familiar with it for its inflexibility and lack of conformance to reality
  • It was developed by the LDS, which in itself is not a problem, but some suggest that some of the problems with its design are a result of some of the LDS beliefs. For example, marriage is forever, not just for life.
  • Basing new developments on GEDCOM design will introduce artificial and unnecessary limits and constraints, when we should be building on and extending beyond what has gone before.

I am not rubbishing GEDCOM. It has made a great contribution to genealogy, and the LDS is to be applauded for developing it and getting it into mainstream use. We would all be the poorer had it not been invented. However one could say the same about MS-DOS (they are about the same age), but I don't hear anyone suggesting GRAMPS' user interface should be modelled on that!

--Annej 09:25, 4 September 2007 (EDT)