TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012591652


From: <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Witness and Roles and V5.0
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 14:27:32 -0500


Bob Velke wrote:
>> Jim said:
>> There is no reason for TMG not to output to a GEDCOM
>> 5.5 file for all individuals associated with an
>> individual event irrespective of whether the
>> individual is p1, p2, or a witness.

> I can think of a good reason. If I am linked as a
> witness to your Baptism event, then such a GEDCOM
> file would indicate to other programs that _I_
> was baptized on that date.
[snip]

Hi, Bob:

The rest of your message included some excellent
points on why we should not get hung up on the use
of "principal" by UFT and TMG, when the word does
not mean the same thing in both contexts.

However, I believe there is an assumption in your
response, above, that is false. That is, that if
the TMG event to which one is a witness is called
a "baptism", then the export function in TMG must
call any and all data generated in GEDCOM format
from that TMG event, a "baptism". TMG can, and
does with ease, distinguish sentence texts
between principals and witnesses. I do not see
why there should be any problem with an equivalent
kind of distinction during GEDCOM generation.

Stipulated, that I vastly prefer the data structure
in TMG to that in GEDCOM. However, GEDCOM 5.5 is
the tool at hand for many jobs, and the only tool
for some jobs. Just like 16-bit FoxPro for so long,
one works with the tools one has. GEDCOM export is
a "sine qua non" of a good genealogical program
today. So the question is not, for me, *whether*
valuable information in TMG should be "permitted"
transfer into a GEDCOM file, but rather *how* to
best do so with the least misrepresentation of
the data in the process. Doing so does not require
maintaining the integrity of the data right down
to the format it is stored and handled in, or the
structure of its linkages. It is much like
language translation; one strives for dynamic
equivalence, not for a rigid one-to-one
correspondence.

What I would like to see in TMG's GEDCOM export is
that if a person is a witness to a TMG event, it
would generate *at least* a NOTE. (I haven't done
anything in the guts of GEDCOM for a while. I may
be thinking of MISC, or something else.) In the
case of a baptism, the NOTE might read something
like:

"Witness-name was a witness to the baptism of
Baptizee-name at Place on Date." (I can't recall
the Baptism equivalent of Communicant -- and I
can see "Baptizee" is ugly. Sorry.) As text, it
would not integrate itself into the recipient
program, but at least the text would BE there to
be seen and used as the recipient user sees fit.

There will likely be cases where "witness to
event X" has an acceptable GEDCOM equivalent that
is more to the point than NOTE, and still does
not do excessive violence to the meaning of the
data in TMG. In that case, the more specific
equivalent should be used. There could also be
an option in TMG for user-generated GEDCOM
text for specific event roles or witnesses, which
as I understand it (which isn't much) would be
the same function, or similar, to what is already
in Version 4.0d for tag principals. I don't see
that it would be any more dangerous than allowing
users to create custom sentences for tags' roles
and witnesses.

Just me thinking on the keyboard.

Darrell


This thread: