TMG-L Archives

From:
Subject: RE: [TMG] Inclusive Dates in Date Field
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 11:00:55 -0500

Bob Velke wrote on this subject:

<<As you know, TMG normally interprets a date as you enter it. That is so
that you can search by year, abbreviate the date when space is limited,
etc. You can avoid having the date interpreted (i.e., it will be recorded
as an "irregular date") but then it just treats it like a bunch of letters
and you can't do as much with it.

If you don't want the date to be interpreted, you can enclose it in
quotes. If you are trying to communicate to other researchers (in reports,
etc.) that you are reciting the date literally from the source and that YOU
haven't attempted to interpret it, then quotes are perhaps the most
appropriate way to do that.

That is, the output would say:
He was listed in the "1813-19" household examination in the household
of the parents.

Finally, keep in mind that you don't have to reference the [D] variable in
the sentence. You can record the date according to your interpretation of
the meaning of "1813-19" and then put something else entirely in the
sentence with respect to the date so that the narrative reads the way that
you prefer.>>

These issues are one reason I have stayed with UFT. That product keeps the dates exactly as entered for the family journal type reports - it doesn't try to produce a "standard" date format. It will try to translate the free form date into a standard date, for use in more structured reports where simple dates are all that are allowed. And it does a pretty good job at figuring out a reasonable standard date to use. If you don't like what it calculates, you can change it to your preferred structured date for the event.

The down side of that freedom is the inability to easily change the formats of most of the normal dates. It took a number of global search-and-replace steps to change, for example, 12 Jan 1901 to 12 January 1901. It would have been more difficult to make a more significant change, e.g. to January 12, 1901.

A good compromise (I'm hoping for version 5) would be to have UFT's ability to keep the date as entered and have options to use that date or any other standard date format for specific reports or displays. (But I'm not advocating delaying TMG5 for that little enhancement.)

Pierce

This thread:

• Re: [TMG] Inclusive Dates in Date Field - To Bob Velke by Bob Velke <>

  • RE: [TMG] Inclusive Dates in Date Field by