"CONC is not a sub-item of PAGE"

[kenahoo]

Hi Paul,

I exported a GEDCOM file from Family Tree Maker in order to try to do some visualization on the graph. When I fed it into the Gedcom module, I get a lot of noise like this:

/tmp/Williams-Schechinger Family Tree 2_2013-07-22.ged:132: CONC is not a sub-item of PAGE
Valid sub-items are 
/tmp/Williams-Schechinger Family Tree 2_2013-07-22.ged:140: CONC is not a sub-item of PAGE
Valid sub-items are 
/tmp/Williams-Schechinger Family Tree 2_2013-07-22.ged:151: CONC is not a sub-item of PAGE
Valid sub-items are 

It looks like that's coming from entries like the following, when I do Gedcom->new($filename):

0 @I00794@ INDI
1 NAME Glenn /Grage/
2 SOUR @S00056@
3 PAGE Year: 1940; Census Place: Kinyon, Cass, North Dakota; Roll: T627_2997; 
4 CONC Page: 3B; Enumeration District: 9-65
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE ABT 1931
2 PLAC North Dakota
2 SOUR @S00056@
3 PAGE Year: 1940; Census Place: Kinyon, Cass, North Dakota; Roll: T627_2997; 
4 CONC Page: 3B; Enumeration District: 9-65
1 RESI
2 DATE 1935
2 PLAC Kinyon, Cass, North Dakota
2 SOUR @S00056@
3 PAGE Year: 1940; Census Place: Kinyon, Cass, North Dakota; Roll: T627_2997; 
4 CONC Page: 3B; Enumeration District: 9-65
1 RESI Age: 9; Marital Status: Single; Relation to Head of House: Son
2 DATE 01 APR 1940
2 PLAC Kinyon, Cass, North Dakota, United States
2 SOUR @S00056@
3 PAGE Year: 1940; Census Place: Kinyon, Cass, North Dakota; Roll: T627_2997; 
4 CONC Page: 3B; Enumeration District: 9-65
1 FAMC @F00275@

Any reason not to allow CONC as subelement of PAGE?

[mikkelee]

Hi Ken

The spec is unfortunately ambiguous in this and other cases. In chapter 1, it says that long values (len > 248 chars) can be continued/concatenated with CONT/CONC tags, however in chapter 2 it only explicitly mentions the CONT/CONC tags as subtags of certain tags such as TEXT, AUTH, TITL, etc.

I personally interpret the spec as saying that any value can be extended with CONT/CONC, but it apepars Paul has a stricter interpretation.

I'm afraid there's no canonical answer.

Mikkel

Spec can be found here

[kenahoo]

Yeah, looks like kind of a loose spec.

Paul, if you were amenable to this change, would a patch like the following accomplish it?

diff --git a/gedcom-5.5.grammar b/gedcom-5.5.grammar
index fc740c5..e83c517 100644
--- a/gedcom-5.5.grammar
+++ b/gedcom-5.5.grammar
@@ -511,6 +511,8 @@ n @<XREF:INDI>@   INDI {1:1}
   [
     n SOUR @<XREF:SOUR>@      {1:1}
       +1 PAGE <WHERE_WITHIN_SOURCE>  {0:1}
+        +2 CONC <WHERE_WITHIN_SOURCE>  {0:M}
+        +2 CONT <WHERE_WITHIN_SOURCE>  {0:M}
       +1 EVEN <EVENT_TYPE_CITED_FROM>  {0:1}
         +2 ROLE <ROLE_IN_EVENT>  {0:1}
       +1 DATA        {0:1}

[pjcj]

Thanks very much for this. I've decided that it's probably easiest to interpret the spec loosely, and also to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of popular genealogy programs, so I have made the default grammar loose and included this change (but not other similar changes - though I have no objection to so doing). I have also included the strict grammar which people can choose to use if they would prefer.

This is included in version 1.19, which I have just released.

Thanks again,