FAMC.PEDI.DATE

[dhesmer]

There are situations where individuals are foster children in different families at different times. In order to also document this in GEDCOM, a time stamp is required. Currently, this is not provided by the FAMC.PEDI structure.
+1 FAMC @XREF:FAM@
+2 PEDI
+3 PHRASE

To this current structure a
+3 DATE
should be added.

Currently the PHRASE could be used by a "FROM TO" Text.
Or ist a "+3 _DATE FROM ... TO ..." a better solution?

[tychonievich]

Discussed in steering committee

We know of a practical need for this, including implementations today doing this as an extension. Adding FAMC.PEDI.DATE with a DateValue payload is planned for 7.1

[tychonievich]

Currently FAMC.PEDI is {0:1} so even with a date it can't have multiple such PEDI. My instinct is that this means we either want

(1) a date for the whole FAMC relationship

  +1 FAMC @<XREF:FAM>@                     {0:M}  g7:INDI-FAMC
     +2 DATE <DateValue>                   {0:1}  g7:DATE
     +2 PEDI <Enum>                        {0:1}  g7:PEDI

or (2) multiple PEDI for a single relationship

  +1 FAMC @<XREF:FAM>@                     {0:M}  g7:INDI-FAMC
     +2 PEDI <Enum>                        {0:M}  g7:PEDI
        +3 DATE <DateValue>                {0:1}  g7:DATE

not (3) a single dated-PEDI for an undated FAMC

  +1 FAMC @<XREF:FAM>@                     {0:M}  g7:INDI-FAMC
     +2 PEDI <Enum>                        {0:1}  g7:PEDI
        +3 DATE <DateValue>                {0:1}  g7:DATE

but I'd be interested in your take @dhesmer (as well as anyone else implementing this as an extension currently)

[dthaler]

Lets say a child was eventually adopted by their foster parents. So for some period of time PEDI FOSTER would apply and then eventually PEDI ADOPTED would apply to the same parents. Should that be two FAMC relationships, each with one PEDI, or one FAMC with two PEDIs?

This is a little similar to the case we dealt with in the remarriage1.ged and remarriage2.ged test files where we permit storing as either one or two families. So I think this argues for Luther's option (2) being at least permitted, even if multiple ways to represent are permitted.

[dhesmer]

As Dave Thaler noted that multiple PEDI relationships can occur, I prefer option 2.
This also corresponds essentially to my original request.

[dthaler]

PR #274 fixed this in the next-minor branch