Brenner Genealogy

1. Are the materials which the source presents well documented?
2. What kinds of sources are represented in the documentation? Are they original records (or photocopies of such) or are they other non-original materials?
3. Are the research and analyses of difficult problems and connections examined in detail so that the bases for their acceptance can be completely understood?

1. The materials are not well documented. A verbal statement that the materials came from FHL microfilms (mostly #1189094) is vague, at best, and relates to the material in general only (that is, it does not document the source of particular data).
2. It is hard to determine whether the author viewed photocopies of the originals (FHL microfilm) or used derivative sources (IGI, AFN). Regardless of what he used the material, as it came to me, was clearly derivative (no images of the German Church Records; only lists, in English, of the events, persons, dates, and localities).
3. There was no analysis of the data, no evidence of conflicts, no examination of the data in detail.

RootsTech 2012 was kicked off by keynoter, Jay Velkler, past president and CEO of FamilySearch. Verkler laid out a vision for the future of genealogy and family history as of 2060.  As part of that vision, the GEDCOM X project became publicly launched on 2 February 2012.

The Past:  
The GEDCOM standard was developed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) and released in 1984.  Its latest official update, GEDCOM 5.5, was released in 1996.  Much has changed since then, and GEDCOM is no longer adequate for the task.  This is no surprise, since GEDCOM’s original purpose was to facilitate communication between the users of Personal Ancestral File (PAF) software and FamilySearch.  GEDCOM was developed by and for LDS and its members.  Because GEDCOM was the only viable standard for communicating between genealogy software programs, it became the industry standard as vendors found ways to adapt and extend it capabilities.  Unfortunately, because the LDS was no longer interested in upgrading GEDCOM as a standard protocol for genealogical communication, GEDCOM is now broken as a standard.  Interestingly, most genealogy software programs cannot even read a GEDCOM file that they have created, without losing the integrity of some of their own data.


The Present:  
BetterGEDCOM was formed because of the fragmented ‘standard’ the GEDCOM had become since the LDS chose not to provide any further support or development for it.  Something has to be done.  BetterGEDCOM has been an effort by some significant spokespersons within the broader genealogical community to deal with their frustration, anger, and desire to develop a new, functional universal standard for communication between various genealogy networks and software programs.   The good news is that those involved in this effort are knowledgeable, passionate, and articulate about genealogy.  The bad news is that open discussion among people with diverse opinions (and strong egos) just takes time.  While there may be general agreements about basics, the development of a universal standard requires broad-based agreement.   That has not yet been reached.


Enter FamilySearch and GEDCOM X!  FamilySearch is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Because the LDS, the Family History Library, and FamilySearch are the largest repository and provider of genealogical information, and because they have been at the task for such a long time, they have a inordinate influence in matters genealogical.  On the one hand, FamilySearch is one of the best friends of the genealogist and family historian.  The amount of data available for free online and at FHL is incredible.  For that we are all thankful to the LDS. On the other hand, FamilySearch has been able to develop its own standards (e.g., GEDCOM) and then present those standards to the genealogical community.  In the long run, that approach has not served us well.  Now we are in an era of open source programming and broad-based collaboration.  ”Collaboration” was one of the buzz words at RootsTech 2012.  Broad-based collaboration must happen as standards are being developed, not after they have been announced.


I suspect that the issue here is not so much about who develops the standard, as it is about how standards for a particular community are ‘governed.’  To announce and implement a standard in relative isolation is not collaboration.  From the little that I have seen so far (http://gedcomx.net/;  http://www.gedcomx.org/; https://github.com/FamilySearch/gedcomx) FamilySearch is willing to have input to the standard that they expect to develop.


One of my concerns has been, as follows — Can we trust FamilySearch to develop and implement a standard (GEDCOM X) in relative isolation when, in the past, they developed both the GEDCOM standard and GEDCOM XML (GEDCOM 6.0), finally abandoning them when apparently they no longer fit their needs?  The truth is that FamilySearch is probably the only player in the field that is influential enough and big enough to develop quickly a new standard protocol for transferring our genealogy data between differing desktop and online programs.  My hope is that there is some broad-based initiative to oversee the new standard (GEDCOM X) for the future.  Jay Verkler talked about a community-owned standard.  That is indeed what we need.  For more information about GEDCOM X, check out Tamura Jones’ website, Modern Software Experience.


The Future: The Family History Information Standards Organization (FHISO) was recently formed for the purpose (my best guess) of moving the divergent conversations of BetterGEDCOM toward convegence into a standard.  I also wonder if a part of the intent is to ensure that GEDCOM X, while developed by FamilySearch, will have a broader community-base for its continuing development.   FHISO is too young to assess and evaluate.  It does, however, hold some promise.  It is now the sponsor of BetterGEDCOM .  FHISO intends to be a community owned organization “created to develop standards for the digital representation and sharing of family history and genealogical information.”  My hope is that FHISO, if it truly becomes what it intends to be, and GEDCOM X will forge a strong partnership.  GEDCOM X will develop the standard with broad-based input from FHISO, BetterGEDCOM, and others in the genealogy community. FHISO will represent the on-going oversight of the standard, with input from FamilySearch and the broader genealogy community.  However this develops, there needs to be much more communication than there seems to have been in the past.


There is one huge issue that stands in the way of developing a new standard for sharing the digital sharing of genealogy and family history information.  In a word, the issue is “Metadata.”  Functionally, the primary concern revolves around sources and citations. At RootsTech 2012, D. Joshua Taylor present a coherent, systemic outline of the issues needing to be resolved for the development of a metadata standard for genealogy.  A copy of Taylor’s presentation (“A User’s Perspective: Developing a Universal Metadata Structure for Genealogical Content Providers”) is available for download from the RootsTech website.  I highly recommend it for those of us who want to learn more about the broader conversation about metadata from the perspective of one who is (in RootsTech terminology) a user, not a developer.


The most positive thing that I heard during my week at RootsTech, was Bruce Buzbee’s answer to the question:  ”How long will it take you, once a new standard is developed (e.g., GEDCOM X), to incorporate that standard in your software?”  Without any hesitation, the RootsMagician said, “30 days!”  To which John Ohana (Ohana Software) piped in, “I can name that tune in 29 days!”  Louis Kessler (Behold) nodded in agreement. So, contrary to what some of us were led to believe, the bottleneck for change is not necessarily the software vendors.  As long as they are kept in the conversation, they can (and likely will) implement the changes necessitated by new standards in a very short time.


What We Can Do:  

I have seen a lot of messages suggesting that, if we want change, we need to talk with the vendors of our favorite genealogy programs.  That might have been the case in the past as we have wanted our desktop software to provide a better interface for citing sources in accord with Evidence Explained or Cite Your Sources.  Of course, many have done that and done it well; and went the further step to provide their templates for the BetterGEDCOM conversation.  Now we need a different strategy.  I consider myself an avid genealogy hobbyist.  (See my blog, “A Hobbyist’s Genealogy Manifesto.“)  I think we all — hobbyists and professionals, users and developers, old-timers and new-comers — need to stay informed about the continuing development of new standards for genealogy and family history…  Who is in the conversation? Who is not?  What is being said and developed?  and  all this with a question ever-present in our minds:  ”How can we interact with those in the conversation and ‘hold their collective feet to the fire?’”  I don’t have an answer to this last question, but I do believe that the responsibility lies with us.  After all, whatever standards are developed, we will be their primary consumers.  I am reminded of a saying from a couple of centuries ago which, paraphrased, would be “Family historians and genealogists were not made for GEDCOM and Metadata standards; GEDCOM and Metadata standards were made for family historians and genealogists.”   So, let your voice be heard in the coming months and years.  And how to do that?  

Prior to leaving for RootsTech 2012, I indicated that I would not be blogging during the conference, but would begin to put my learning to work and report on the results.  My first after-RootsTech post is about a newly developed numbering system for genealogical purposes.

My son and I have discussed for a long time the possibilities of a numbering system for our genealogical records.  The most prominent systems available to us as genealogists is, of course, derive from the Ahnentafel system which dates back to Michael Eytzinger in 1590.  I recently spend time looking at William Dollarhide’s combination of the Ahnentafel and Henry systems — in particular, Terry Cole’s adaptations of Dollarhide.  In truth, none of the systems we discussed, “invented,” or tried out seemed to be what we had hoped for.  A RootsTech workshop on the Ancestral Lines Paring System, attended by my son, has changed that.

The Ancestral Lines Paring System was presented by Capers W. McDonald its developer.  NEHGS has published McDonald’s paper which describes the  Ancestral Lines Paring System.  More information about the system can be found at the Ancestral Lines website.  This system differs significantly from Ahnentafel.   The Ahnentafel system begins with the root person in your pedigree and counts that person’s ancestor’s in numerical order, moving backwards through the generations.  The Ahnentafel system is based on simple arithmetic progression. It is designed to be an index number, a locator.  It contains no genealogical content — that is, each Ahnentafel number is simply a pointer to a particular individual in your pedigree.  By itself, it does not convey information about a person’s ancestral line or generation.

Each Ancestral Lines Paring System two digit number, on the other hand, indicates precisely the ancestral line and the generation to which the individual belongs.  I found the concept of Ancestral Lines Paring System intuitively to be quite clear.  Each direct ancestor’s number is a combination of the ancestral line and the generation.  1.7, for example,  represents the 7th generation direct paternal ancestor of the root person in the pedigree.  In our case, since we have my son listed as the root person, 1.7 is Georg Friederich Brenner (my son’s 4g-grandfather).   The full implementation of the Ancestral Lines Paring System , on the other hand, took a bit more than intuition.  Yesterday, with some patient coaching by my son, I was able to identify the Ancestral Lines Paring System number for all direct ancestors in our newly pruned data base.  (Recently I pruned a 7000 individual RootsMagic 5 database down to 700 persons.  I removed many, many unsourced people and a ton of collateral lines.)

The root person (female or male) establishes ancestral line #1.  They are also the 1st generation, so their Ancestral Lines Paring System number is 1.1 — the first is the line; the second, the generation.  All their direct line paternal ancestors are line #1, but a different generation.  Dad Brenner is 1.2 (1st line, 2nd generation); Grandpa Brenner is 1.3; Great-Granddad Brenner is 1.4; and so forth.

The root person’s mother (Mom Brenner) establishes the second ancestral line in the pedigree and is numbered 2.2 (2nd line, 2nd generation).  Note Mom Brenner (nee Weaver) is second generation relative to the root person.  Each direct ancestor at the same level in your pedigree tree will have the same generation number, but a different line number.

Grandpa Brenner (Dad’s Dad) is 1.3 as noted above — ancestral line #1, 3rd generation.  Grandma Brenner (nee Deeter), the same generation number as Grandpa, establishes a new line, the third one so far.  Her number is 3.3 — ancestral line #3, 3rd generation.  Mom’s Dad, Granddad Weaver, is 2.3 (remember, Mom Brenner established ancestral line #2) — ancestral line #2, 3rd generation.  Mom’s Mother (don’t call her “Mom”), Grandmother Weaver (nee Gregg), establishes the 4th ancestral line, so she is numbered 4.3

As we continue to add maternal lines, their number is determined by a mathematical formula (see Capers McDonald’s paper).  Here are the basic concepts involved:

1. Generation #2 contains two people – the father and mother of the root person.
2. Once established, ancestral line numbers persist as you continue to expand your pedigree; generation numbers change.
3. All ancestral lines extending back from the root person’s father (line #1) will be odd numbers (3, 5, 7, 9, etc.).
4. All ancestral lines extending back from the root person’s mother (line #2) will be even numbers (4, 6, 8, 10, etc.).
5. Each new ancestral line added will be a maternal line — odd number, if the lineage is from the root person’s father;  even number, if from the root person’s mother.
6. As each new ancestral line continues, it is treated as a paternal line — that is, the line # persists, the generation number increases by one for each new generation.   Even though each ancestral  line begins with a mother, it continues through her father / grandfather / great-grandfather / etc.
7. The computation of each new maternal line is as follows:  take the ancestral line number of the woman’s husband (that is, the ancestral line into which she marries) and increase it by the total number of possible direct ancestors in the previous generation.   (McDonald provides a formula because the actual number of possible direct ancestors in each generation increases exponentially – 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, etc.)