Question GEDCOM 7 - personal name structure

webtrees tries to follow the GEDCOM 5.5.1 standard. However, it makes a few extensions.

Myself and a few others have been working with the GEDCOM 7 project, and have managed to get most of these extensions accepted in to the GEDCOM 7 specification. Either the current version or a future version.

These extensions include:

* Allow RESN tags on all record types - not just INDI/FAM
* Allow "RESN none" to indicate a public record
* Allow "*" to indicate a prefered given name
* Allow uninflected surnames to be used in the SURN tag
* Allow the Arabic calendar
* Allow the Persian calendar
* Allow markdown formatting on NOTE and SNOTE

Next, we have a big opportunity! I have been invited to lead the project to decide the future format/structure of the INDI:NAME record!

One of the first tasks will be to collect examples of names that do not fit the current "NPFX GIVN /SPFX SURN/ NSFX" format.

e.g. patronyms, matronyms, toponyms, multiple-surnames, inflected surnames, no surnames, etc.

I am sure the webtrees community has lots of experience with names, and lots of examples to share. Please post them here.

I don't know if this is an example you're looking for, but Dutch people always have trouble entering a 'roepnaam' correctly in the gedcom. I deliberately do not translate 'roepnaam' because there is no English translation for the word as far as I know. it is not the same as the English 'nickname' (in Dutch 'bijnaam'). This has been discussed before, but the purpose and importance of the Dutch 'roepnaam' has never been fully understood in my opinion.

An example: Everyone knows "Johan Cruijff," one of the world's most famous soccer players.

He was born as "Hendrikus Johannes Cruijff." Hendrikus Johannes are his birth names. In gedcom the GIVN names.
But his parents decided that his 'roepnaam' will be Johan. In the Netherlands it is very common for a child to be given a 'roepnaam' by his parents at birth. This name is mentioned on the birth card. So from the day a child is born, everyone knows that the child's name is "Johan." But in official documents the name "Hendrikus Johannes" is used. So on the birth certificate, only his official first names are recorded. Usually this has to do with the fact that parents like to name their child after a parent or grandparent, but want to have a name chosen by them for daily use.

During his career as a soccer player, Johan gets many nicknames ('bijnamen' in Dutch). Among them are "number 14" and "El Salvador. Those names are the real nicknames and can be registered in the gedcom with the tag NICK. But there is no way to register a 'roepnaam' correctly in the current gedcom standard.

So his Gedcom looks something like this without the 'roepnaam':

1 NAME Hendrikus Johannes /Cruijff/
2 TYPE BIRTH
2 GIVN Hendrikus Johannes
2 SURN Cruijff
2 NICK Nummer 14, El Salvador

But it should be something like this when we also want to record the very important 'roepnaam':

1 NAME Hendrikus Johannes "Johan" /Cruijff/
2 TYPE BIRTH
2 GIVN Hendrikus Johannes
2 CALL Johan
2 SURN Cruijff
2 NICK Nummer 14, El Salvador

I use CALL as an example of how the 'roepnaam' could be included. The 'roepnaam' between double quotes in the NAME tag is how it is normally written in Dutch when the official name is used, but one also want to include the 'roepnaam' (the name recognized by everyone). So between the given names and the surname.

If you want to read more about the Dutch 'roepnaam' culture, you should definitely look at this blog post: dutchreview.com/culture/what-is-a-roepnaam-explained/

Carmen,

Roepnaam sounds like the German Rufname!

Real challenge: Chinese names with generation characters Wikipedia is your friend...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_name

norwegian_sardines wrote:

Roepnaam sounds like the German Rufname!

It does indeed, but last time I suggested that here I was strongly told by a German these are different concepts. It's more alike German Spitzname.

norwegian_sardines wrote:

Roepnaam sounds like the German Rufname!

In Germany, the 'Rufname' is one of the GIVN names, while in the Netherlands this does not have to be the case at all.
(see comment by Fouke Boss (Centurial) on Nederlandse GEDCOM afspraken – roepnaam )

More about 'roepnaam': hoezegjeinhetengels.nl/roepnaam/

TheDutchJewel wrote:

In Germany, the 'Rufname' is one of the GIVN names, while in the Netherlands this does not have to be the case at all.

While the 'roepnaam' doesn't have to be a part of the GIVN names it is often derived from the GIVN names. Someone with the birth names 'Hendrikus Johannes' as in my earlier example can have one of the following 'roepnamen': Hendrik, Henk, Rik, Jo, Johan, Han, Hans etc. Note: this list is not limited.

fisharebest wrote:

Next, we have a big opportunity! I have been invited to lead the project to decide the future format/structure of the INDI:NAME record!

One of the first tasks will be to collect examples of names that do not fit the current "NPFX GIVN /SPFX SURN/ NSFX" format.

I am sure the webtrees community has lots of experience with names, and lots of examples to share. Please post them here.

First of all congratulations. That's hopefully good news.

Does changing the algorithm to generate the NAME tag also fall under this topic?

I am thinking of names like:
NPFX Dr.
GIVN Hieronymus Carl Friedrich
SPFX Baron von
SURN Münchhausen
NSFX der Grosse

and refer to our chat in this regard.
www.webtrees.net/index.php/en/forum/help...rsome?start=20#94879

> I don't know if this is an example you're looking for, but Dutch people always have trouble entering a 'roepnaam' correctly in the gedcom.

Thanks, Carmen. This is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for.

Greg,

As we have discussed:

Norwegian Patronymic names, farm names, call name and preferred name parts.

Examples:
Call name: Pauline Leonora Feyling, She was known as “Paula” by everyone.
Preferred name: Ludwig Johannas Feyling, Always known as Johan.

Patronymic + Farm Identity (male): Magnus Olsen Bruflot, Given name = Magnus; Patronymic name = Olsen (Olssen or Olson); Farm Name = Bruflot (Farm name changes as they move from farm to farm, later used as surname when required by law)

Patronymic + Farm Identity (female): Maria Olsdatter Bruflot, Given name = Maria; Patronymic name = Olsdatter (Olssdotter Olsdatter); Farm Name = Bruflot (Farm name changes as they move from farm to farm, later used as surname when required by law).

bertkoor wrote:

Real challenge: Chinese names with generation characters Wikipedia is your friend...
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_name

Thank you for bringing this up. My experience agrees with your Wikipedia article: "Generation names may be the first or second character in a given name"
Also, more than some lineages don't use generational names. I use an older style of separating the given names (which includes the generational name, when present) when using romanization.
Contrary to some of the East Asian family historians participating on other threads, I don't have a problem with 5.5.1 structure with generational names. Of course, I will place the Generational Poem as a shared note. Hopefully I am not misunderstanding what Greg is asking.

Sorry to the majority non East Asians on this Forum, but this is probably TMI.

IMHO

Doug,

The question is, if you could change GEDCOM to properly support your Chinese what would your needs be? We will try to incorporate the needs into the design changes. Getting the way people identify themselves is important to us and we would like experts in particular traditions to have a way going forward.

Bogie wrote:

I am thinking of names like:
NPFX Dr.
GIVN Hieronymus Carl Friedrich
SPFX Baron von
SURN Münchhausen
NSFX der Grosse

and refer to our chat in this regard.
www.webtrees.net/index.php/en/forum/help...rsome?start=20#94879

I understand this is an artificial example to illustrate the usage of all these different tags, but I am afraid this example points into the wrong direction based upon a wrong assumption that academic titles and titles of nobility are always part of the name. At least for Germany that's wrong. There are only a few families where in 1919 a title of nobility became part of the family name which in fact means they no longer carry the respective title of nobility. Think of it as a conversion from title to name effective August 14th 1919.

For both academic titles and titles of nobility there already exist the respective tags GRAD and TITL in GEDCOM 5.5.1 - see webtrees.net/downloads/gedcom-5-5-1.pdf - which both are subtags to an individual's event which means the are usually time bound. One receives a title on a specific date and one may give up or loose a title at a specific date. Unfortunately there is no such DATE tag available for the NAME tag. That might be a good idea for GEDCOM 7.

GRAD {GRADUATION}:=
An event of awarding educational diplomas or degrees to individuals.

NOBILITY_TYPE_TITLE:=
The title given to or used by a person, especially of royalty or other noble class within a locality.

Re academic titles I *believe* you refer to the wide-spread usage of the academic title of a Dr. on the German identity card and the presumed right of a Dr. to be called by that title. That right simply doesn't exist in Germany - because the Dr. is NOT part of the name. It's just a matter of courtesy. For an example explanation of this matter by a German lawyer see www.sprache-werner.info/Anspruch-auf-Anrede.1923.html , but there are many other websites explaining this matter.

JustCarmen wrote:

But it should be something like this when we also want to record the very important 'roepnaam':

1 NAME Hendrikus Johannes "Johan" /Cruijff/
2 TYPE BIRTH
2 GIVN Hendrikus Johannes
2 CALL Johan
2 SURN Cruijff
2 NICK Nummer 14, El Salvador

I use CALL as an example of how the 'roepnaam' could be included. The 'roepnaam' between double quotes in the NAME tag is how it is normally written in Dutch when the official name is used, but one also want to include the 'roepnaam' (the name recognized by everyone). So between the given names and the surname.

Instead of creating more country or culture specific standard or non-standard subtags to the NAME tag like CALL, RUFN, _GERN, _RUFNAME, etc. I suggest to use the TYPE subtag. Applications like webtrees could then use a list of standard phrases for GEDCOM 7 with the respective translations. For specific use cases add-on modules could introduce additional phrases incl. translations. Last not least the PHRASE tag could still allow free text.

GEDCOM 7.0.10.1 says:

and gives this example:

I *believe* GEDCOM already provides solutions for the most - at least western - naming conventions. What I am really missing is a DATE subtag.

Re the NICK tag I'd remove it from standard and use "1 NAME 2 TYPE OTHER 3 PHRASE nickname" instead so that a DATE subtag could easily be added to it. Remember Johan Cruyff was nicknamed El Salvador only after February 1974. With the current GEDCOM 7 version I would have to record such details in the 1 NAME 2 NOTE tag.

Sir Peter wrote:

I understand this is an artificial example to illustrate the usage of all these different tags, but I am afraid this example points into the wrong direction based upon a wrong assumption that academic titles and titles of nobility are always part of the name. At least for Germany that's wrong. There are only a few families where in 1919 a title of nobility became part of the family name which in fact means they no longer carry the respective title of nobility. Think of it as a conversion from title to name effective August 14th 1919.

I disagree with your statement. It is far too specific and is only based on one given example. We should not only take into account academic degrees or titles of nobility or a period after 1919. It is rather about a general rule how NAME tags should be generated.

As the algorithm is written today, it is not generally usable and must be adjusted whenever previously unimplemented name components appear. From my point of view it must not matter for the algorithm what the user writes into the fields. But today webtrees evaluates the content and this is not general!

Try to follow this artificial example
NPFX part1a part1b part1c
GIVN part2a part2b part2c
SPFX part3a part3b part3c
SURN part4a part4b part4c
NSFX part5a part5b part5c

Would that work as expected, today? No it wouldn't.

Whatever content would be delivered I would expect only SURN being responsible for indexing and sorting of lists but SPFX + SURN being shown as a unit as given by Greg see above.
NPFX GIVN /SPFX SURN/ NSFX

The outcome would be much more predictable for all users especially of other name traditions. For Chinese name tradition i.e. only the sequence would have to be changed to /SPFX SURN/ GIVN.

The naming convention in Iceland differs from most other cultures in the world today since it has primarily preserved the naming tradition from the Norse settlement of Iceland (from ca. 874 to 930). The Icelandic names are seperated basically in two parts, first name/-s and last name/-s. First name/-s as being the given name (forename) of the individual and last name/-s as being the direct patronymic and/or matronymic surname and/or an inherited family name (Not allowed after 1925 with the exception as inherited family name).

For the Icelandic naming convention a couple of suggestions have been made on webtrees forum and Github regarding how to address recording of patronymic and/or matronymic last names (surnames) in GEDCOM. It has been stated on the webtrees forum that the surname subtag shouldn’t be used for this purpose as well as the slashes in the personal name tag. These suggestions simply eliminate the use of the personal name tag slashes and the subtag for the surname when used for Icelandic patronymic and/or matronymic last names (surnames). I have argued for using the surname in GEDCOM in webtrees for the last name/-s of an individual to make a clear distinction between first name/-s and last name/-s in order to meet the requirements of the Icelandic naming convention and also because of concern regarding undistorted sharing of genealogy information (personal name) between applications.

The interpretation of the noun “surname” clearly differs between different cultures. Synonyms to the noun “surname” are family name, last name, patronymic and matronymic (Collins English Dictionary). In American English the surname simply means last name. The noun “surname” translates in Icelandic to “eftirnafn” or last name and in Icelandic passports the patronymic and/ matronymic surname and/or family name are listed under “surname” in English.

In order to verify if the suggestions proposed to address Icelandic patronymic and/or matronymic last name (surname) in GEDCOM would indeed preserve those names when sharing the genealogy data between different genealogy applications I made a simple test. One of the purpose of GEDCOM is to be able to share genealogy information between different applications. From my test it is evident that there is a clear fallacy in the suggestions made regarding addressing Icelandic last name/-s (patronymic and/or matronymic surname) in GEDCOM.

The test reveals that the Icelandic last name/-s (patronymic and/or matronymic surnames) are either omitted or regenerated incorrectly based on the personal name tag in the receiving applications, which totally defeats the purpose of GEDCOM (“Its purpose is to foster the sharing of genealogical information and the development of a wide range of inter-operable software products to assist genealogists, historians, and other researchers.” GEDCOM 5.5.1 and 7.0.10)

Following is the test procedure used to verify if the suggestions made do in fact work for sharing genealogy data between appliations without any distortion:

1. Family tree of 5 individuals was created in webtrees in accordance with suggestions made to address the Icelandic naming convention (patronymic and/or matronymic last names (surnames)).
2. The family tree was then exported from webtrees to a GEDCOM file.
3. The exported webtrees GEDCOM file was then imported to five different genealogy applications.
4. GEDCOM file was then exported from each of the five genealogy applications, without any changes being made in the application.

The applications used in the test were easily accessible and therefore used but should give a relatively good indication on what to expect from other applications from the same test.

Examples taken from each GEDCOM (5.5.1) file exported for the same individual (same results for other individuals in the family tree) and the family tree was set to Icelandic patronymic naming system, in webtrees version 2.1.7.

From webtrees (As suggested) the transmitting application:

```
0 @X1@ INDI
1 NAME Jón Sigurðsson
2 GIVN Jón
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE 01 JAN 1950
```

From the receiving application, Ancestral Quest (Last name missing):

```
0 @I1@ INDI
1 NAME Jón //
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE 1 JAN 1950
```

From the receiving application, Gramps (Last name missing):

```
0 @X1@ INDI
1 NAME Jón //
2 GIVN Jón
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE 1 JAN 1950
```

From the receiving application, Heredis (Last name missing (? No Name)):

```
0 @55@ INDI
1 NAME Jón/? No Name/
2 GIVN Jón
2 SURN ? No Name
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE 1 JAN 1950
```

From the receiving application, MacFamilyTree (Last name not missing but generated incorrectly (includes given name) from the name tag in GEDCOM):

```
0 @X1@ INDI
1 NAME Jón /Jón Sigurðsson/
2 GIVN Jón
2 SURN Jón Sigurðsson
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE 01 JAN 1950
```

From the receiving application, RootsMagic (Last name missing):

```
0 @I1@ INDI
1 NAME Jón //
2 GIVN Jón
1 SEX M
1 BIRT
2 DATE 1 JAN 1950
```

I for one will continue to use the personal name tag including surname slashes and also the given and surname subtags to ensure a clear distinction between to the two different name part of the Icelandic naming convention (system). This way I ensure undistorted sharing of genealogy information, if required, between different applications regarding each persons names. Based on the test detailed above this also concurs with how the five different genealogy applications in the test interpret the GEDCOM standards. Some of the above mentioned receiving applications seem to only look for the given and surname subtags while others use the personal name tag.

Furthermore if by following the above mentioned suggestions then the individual list in webtrees becomes almost useless for looking up persons based on their Icelandic last names and also the same applies to the genealogy statistic in webtrees (for last names). See detailed information on Github [Surname Tradition - Icelandic — Children take a patronym instead of a surname - Change request · Issue #4575 · fisharebest/webtrees · GitHub]( github.com/fisharebest/webtrees/issues/4575 ).

It is quite clear to me that If we skip making a clear distinction between individual’s first name/-s and last name/-s (Icelandic naming convention at least) we end up with a distorted genealogy information when shared through the GEDCOM standard with other applications.

If there is a need to differentiate between the origin of the last names (surname), i.e. whether the origin is based on place, farm, patronymic, matronymic etc. then perhaps that could be addressed differently.

The above information is put forward based on the Icelandic naming convention requirements.

Reference:
[Iceland Personal Names • FamilySearch]( www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Iceland_Personal_Names )
[Surname]( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surname )

Naming customs in Historical Norway are similar to Icelandic as it pertains to the patronymic custom and this is one of the many reasons we are engaged in the re-design of the NAME structure.

Some application ignore the NAME subtags (i.e. surname, given name, suffix, etc.), while others use them to override the NAME tag, and still others do not support all of the subtags just some of them. These problems are not the reason for the exercise of collecting the essence of as many customs as possible, rather, to be sure that the structure can support the customs if a software program “cares” to support their use!

Gudjonsi said:

One of the purpose of GEDCOM is to be able to share genealogy information between different applications. From my test it is evident that there is a clear fallacy in the suggestions made regarding addressing Icelandic last name/-s (patronymic and/or matronymic surname) in GEDCOM.

This is a problem as well in historical Norway, where a inheritable family name was not required until a law was passed in 1923 when each individual was required to choose a name to be inherited by the next generation. Norway also has a tradition where individual’s identify themselves by the farm they currently live on and that identity should be collected as part of their name but not as a true surname. I have experienced that most people living in the USA that are a couple generations removed from Norway have no concept of farm name or patronymic traditions, which unfortunately will not change in their minds and probably not in the way they use software.

One of the important issues I have is the missing ability of most software programs to create an index that supports family and tribal grouping as part of their identity (when a family name is not used in their custom) which is partially solved with Greg’s comment

* Allow uninflected surnames to be used in the SURN tag

which is expected to support the custom of individuals of the same family having a root portion of a “surname” plus a gender specific surname suffix, but not farm or tribal groups.

Bogie said:

As the algorithm is written today, it is not generally usable and must be adjusted whenever previously unimplemented name components appear. From my point of view it must not matter for the algorithm what the user writes into the fields. But today webtrees evaluates the content and this is not general!

I’m not sure that GEDCOM v5.5.1 has an identified “algorithm”, so any talk about webtrees is not appropriate for this discussion!

fisharebest wrote:

One of the first tasks will be to collect examples of names that do not fit the current “NPFX GIVN /SPFX SURN/ NSFX” format.

e.g. patronyms, matronyms, toponyms, multiple-surnames, inflected surnames, no surnames, etc.

I am addressing this regarding the Icelandic naming convention (system) and also based on practical tests with inter-operability between different genealogy applications through GEDCOM.

As has already been argued before I consider the current “NPFX GIVN /SPFX SURN/ NSFX” format to be fully compatible to the Icelandic naming convention and works in practice when sharing genealogy information between different applications through GEDCOM if both the given and surname subtags are used in combination with the name tag including the slash pair for surname/-s.

To emphasise: Personal names in Iceland consist of two separate sections, i.e. first name/-s (given name, forename) and last name/-s (patronymic and/or matronymic surnames and/or family names). Icelanders always go by their first name/-s (given name) and their last name/-s only represents family lineage.

For Icelanders there is no need to make a special distinction between patronymic/matronymic surnames and family surnames in GEDCOM. In Iceland patronymic/matronymic surnames are self explanatory and the same applies to family names. The origin of Icelandic inheritable family names is either as a fixed ancestors patronymic surname or a toponym derived surname based on places. In Iceland we simply treat inheritable family names in general as surnames whatever their derived origin may be.

Following examples have been confirmed to work in practice when sharing genealogy information between different applications through GEDCOM (5.5.1) and without any data being omitted or distorted in the transmission:

0 @I1@ INDI
1 NAME Gunnar /Sveinsson/
2 GIVN Gunnar
2 SURN Sveinsson
1 SEX M

0 @I2@ INDI
1 NAME Anna Guðrún /Jónsdóttir Beck/
2 GIVN Anna Guðrún
2 SURN Jónsdóttir Beck
1 SEX F

0 @I3@ INDI
1 NAME Guðrún Rán /Gunnarsdóttir Önnudóttir Beck/
2 GIVN Guðrún Rán
2 SURN Gunnarsdóttir Önnudóttir Beck
1 SEX F

0 @I4@ INDI
1 NAME Hrafn /Gunnarsson Beck/
2 GIVN Hrafn
2 SURN Gunnarsson Beck
1 SEX M

One pair of slashes is sufficient to delimit the Icelandic last name/-s (single or multiple surname) in the personal name tag in my opinion to be able to address the Icelandic needs. One subtag for multiple given names and the same for multiple surnames is enough unless version 7.x requires separate subtags for multiple given names and multiple surnames.

Sorting of first name and last names in each application would be based on the first given name or the first last name as recorded in the GEDCOM when sorting given name versus surname in a list of individuals.

norwegian_sardines wrote:

These problems are not the reason for the exercise of collecting the essence of as many customs as possible, rather, to be sure that the structure can support the customs if a software program “cares” to support their use!

I can only speak for the Icelandic naming convention and how to address it in GEDCOM in order for it to meet Icelandic needs and to prevent possible problems in transmission between applications. Different interpretations of the standard can easily cause problems in this regard and I simply want to make sure that those concerns are raised both for webtrees as well as for future development of the GEDCOM standard. From my testing of several different genealogy applications (including webtrees) they all do support the Icelandic naming convention as long as the personal name tag and the given and surname subtags are used in a certain way then the inter-operability is ensured.

I hope this is of some benefit for your work involving INDI:NAME record in version 7.x at least concerning Icelandic naming convention.

Gudjonsi,

A surname is generally defined as: “a hereditary name common to all members of a family, as distinct from a given name.“

Pertaining to the following:
0 @I2@ INDI
1 NAME Anna Guðrún /Jónsdóttir Beck/
2 GIVN Anna Guðrún
2 SURN Jónsdóttir Beck
1 SEX F

My question to you is, has Iceland always recognized Jónsdóttir or Beck as a true surname (as defined above), because in Norway it was not required for some to have an inherited surname until after 1923!

In Norway prior to 1923 I would create this identity in GEDCOM as
0 @I2@ INDI
1 NAME Anna Gudrun Jonsdotter Beck
2 GIVN Anna Gudrun
1 SEX F

Because neither Jonsdotter or Beck were considered surnames.

After 1923 I would write the same identity in GEDCOM as:
0 @I2@ INDI
1 NAME Anna Gudrun Jonsdotter /Beck/
2 GIVN Anna Gudrun
2 SURN Beck
1 SEX F

Because an individual after 1923 must have a surname but can only have one surname unless they were combined with a “-“.

At present GEDCOM v5.5.1 does not require the subtags to NAME and while it could be part of the new design proposal to require these (and other) subtags, other application developers may balk at their inclusion as required in all transmissions.

Just to be clear, programs today are not required to generate or import the NAME subtags, so it is important to completely understand customs (both today and historically) so that any proposal has examples of what has to be entered to facilitate good identity/name transfer from one program to another, which is not what happens today due to understanding differences, this is the reason I included the statement you quoted.

norwegian_sardines wrote:

Code:

0 @I2@ INDI 1 NAME Anna Gudrun Jonsdotter Beck 2 GIVN Anna Gudrun 1 SEX F

Patronyms and matronyms: part of a name referring to the first (given) name of the father / mother. These do not only occur in the Nordic countries. This was tradition in large parts of The Netherlands (particular in Jewish communities but also North/East regions) prior to 1812 when Napoleon ruled that we all should inherit the surname of our father.

I think it important that gedcom gives us the tools to identify what part has what meaning. Patronyms/matronyms point back just one generation, so are not so handy for reports and such. But it would be good to be able to fill all gaps. Eg

Similarly, toponyms would be nice to identify.

Bert,

A good suggestion for a tag name, but premature during collection of all name traditions, next step would then be the design of a solution and creating the new tags!

Or…

If Beck is the surname then NAME should have the “/“ around it!

Unless the subtags became required, then the “/“ would be removed! But again, my correction is premature in the name tradition collection phase!