Confusing "Age in the document" text

[tychonievich]

https://gedcom.io/specifications/FamilySearchGEDCOMv7.html#AGE defines AGE as

The age of the individual at the time an event occurred, or the age listed in the document.

However, AGE cannot appear beneath a SOUR and has no other way to indicate which document is meant by "the age listed in the document." This text did not appear in 5.5.1. I recommend we remove ", or the age listed in the document" entirely.

[Norwegian-Sardines]

This text did not appear in 5.5.1. I recommend we remove ", or the age listed in the document" entirely.

See page 83/84 of the v5.5.1 GEDCOM from 15 November 2019.

[Norwegian-Sardines]

If we are rewording the definition of the AGE payload we need to determine what the payload represents based on the location of where the tag is found in the GEDCOM structure. We also need to review other GEDCOM documentation that references the AGE payload.

For example the AGE definition in 2.6 indicates:

Note — Because age payloads are intended to allow recording the age as it was recorded in records that could contain errors, odd ages such as 8w 30d , 1y 400d , 1y 30m , etc. are permitted

I presume that the word "records" (from above) truly means, "Source Artifact"

The GEDCOM Document describes the following places for use of the AGE payload

1. FAMILY_EVENT_DETAIL where GEDCOM indicates that the HUSB.AGE and WIFE.AGE payloads indicate that the age represents that of the individual at the time of the wedding (or other family based event).

2. INDIVIDUAL_EVENT_DETAIL where GEDCOM has no specific definition or use case. This structure places the AGE payload at the same level as a DATE or SOURCE_CITATION

Only these two places in The Standard contain an AGE payload.

Based on the wording I've identified above I can only assume that the AGE payload is populated based on the age as indicated in a "Source Artifact", I also believe that the intent was that this was not a calculated payload, based on the fact that the Event/Attribute may not have an actual date of its occurrence, but the "Source Artifact" may indicate a recorded age at the time of the Event/Attribute. An example would be testimonial based "Source Artifacts" such as a Census where the data collector only collects the testified age from the interviewed individual which could be wrong (The Standard says this in section 2.6).

Is the location of the AGE payload in support of this conclusion?

I contend that the AGE payload can not be placed at any other location without a major change in the design of "Sourcing"! While the AGE payload is closely associated with the "Source Artifact" placing the AGE payload within the SOURCE_CITATION only makes sense if it is included within the SOUR.DATA either at the same level as the TEXT payload or within the that payload. (I'm leaning toward the former rather than the later).

I personally think that the SOURCE_CITATION is incorrectly named as it is not really a "citation" in any form, but more about detail from the "Source Artifact" as it pertains to the associated Event/Attribute. A properly developed "citation" would not include "Text", "Quality", "Media". But would include "Where found in source", "Date of view/retrieval".

I would be in favor of extending the language of the definition of the AGE payload to place more importance on the age representing what was indicated in the "Source Artifact", that it is not a calculated value and that it could be a valid replacement for an unspecified DATE of the event/attribute!