TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012706642


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 21:24:02 -0600
References: <3C5C47B0.1830.B27A9C@localhost><5.1.0.14.2.20020202071024.0d30fdb0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020202022259.00a0d590@pop.sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020202173803.01350e68@pop3.norton.antivirus>


At 06:00 PM 2/2/02 -0500, Lee Hoffman wrote:
>F. Langset wrote:
>>I hope this is not regarded as an undue interference in your
>>discussion.
>
>This discussion is open to all comers. <g>

Hi:

Yes, and have at it <grin>.

>> We must not let the holes in GEDCOM reflect into TMG.
>
>That is exactly the point that Bob is making. TMG can allow the user to
>enter data for which there is no method (within GEDCOM) to export the data
>such that the data is understood correctly by another program.

If data is exported as text in a GEDCOM NOTE tag, the issue of "understood
correctly by another program" is irrelevant. The other program never
attempts to understand the data, it simply attaches it to the record of the
person in question.

>Lacking such a method, TMG simply chooses to ignore that data rather than
>possibly (probably) export corrupt data.

TMG does not lack such a method. It already uses one. A TMG "Biography" tag
is exported as plain text via GEDCOM using the NOTE tag in exactly the same
manner as I have proposed the output from a Witness Sentence be exported,
as a user option. The data would not be corrupt on export, unless TMG
considers its own default printed reports to be corrupting data. It would
be corrupt on import into the receiving program only if that program is
really stupid. But that isn't TMG's problem; another program could
interpret every NOTE tag created from a TMG "Biography" tag as a Military
Service tag, for all Bob V. could do about it.

>So TMG follows the GEDCOM "standard" as closely as possible -- while
>allowing the user to still enter non-exportable (via GEDCOM) data _IF_
>they wish. Alternatively, TMG also allows the user to enter data in such
>a way that it may be exported via GEDCOM. The problem with this last is
>that some TMG capabilities are not used. The user just has to determine
>which is the most important -- using the advanced capabilities of TMG or not.

The problem is that "allowing the user to enter non-exportable data" sounds
like it refers to a user-defined tag, or funky sentence structure, or some
other "don't call us for support" option capability. It isn't. Witnesses
are not "permitted" to users as a concession. They are part of the
foundation of TMG. My objection is that Bob V. seems unwilling to extend a
method TMG is already using in GEDCOM export (the NOTE tag in GEDCOM for
"Biography" material in TMG) and in printed reports (the "All Plus
Witnessed" option using tag Witness sentences) to solve a problem some of
us find severely limiting. It is being made explicit that we must choose
*between* exporting witness data -- even if we are happy with unstructured,
text only export -- and using much of the design feature of TMG that
differentiates it from all the rest. Well, if I have to use TMG *like* PAF,
might as well *get* PAF. But my argument is that this choice is being
forced on me for no good reason.

Fulminating as usual.

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois



This thread: