Kudos to James Tanner, for again weighing in on the topic of data sharing among researchers using different genealogy software programs. See: Understanding the controversy surrounding GEDCOM posted on his Genealogy's Star blog, where James states:
"Almost every popularly sold genealogy program on the market will adequately take all of the information from a PAF file and import it into its own data structure. But if you want to move from one of the more commercial programs to another today, you either have to rely on the programs' own initiative or suffer the loss of some data when you transfer a GEDCOM file."
From reading his previous blog posts, I don't believe James is recommending we take a giant step back in time and use PAF [Personal Ancestral File] for genealogy data management. Rather, I'd like to think his term "more commercial programs" has less to do with money but is akin to the phrase "more robust genealogy programs". This would indicate the newer genealogy software choices have more features than offered in good ol' PAF. (Pardon the accent on old.)
Indeed the developers of the non-PAF genealogy software have crafted worthwhile products that reflect changes in technology and take into account source citations and research methodologies developed during the last decade and a half.
|A sieve is better suited to cooking than genealogy.|
For 21st century genealogists, "Just the facts, 'ma'am" isn't good enough. Every bit of information we collect is essential for evaluating the completeness of research on each ancestor and his family. Choosing to computerize only a portion of the compiled information keeps that additional information hidden from view by other researchers. It is precisely that additional information that helps me evaluate the reliability of another genealogist's work in the context of a reasonably exhaustive search.
Happy family tree climbing!
Your friend in genealogy.