TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012880764


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 21:46:04 -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><5.1.0.14.0.20020202205107.00a10900@pop.sprynet.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020203104056.00a3fec0@pop.sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <021401c1ad6d$012dbde0$895132d2@good>


At 09:38 PM 2/4/02 +1100, Astrid Kranzbuhler wrote:
>Hi Darrell,
>in my previous post I tried to address several issues at once, not just in
>response to your post, I probably shouldn't have done that, sorry.
>
>And actually, I meant to describe the *GEDCOM Import* into the program 'a
>DISASTER', not the program itself. :-)

Hi, Astrid:

I may have misunderstood you on that point, but I was actually responding
to the import issue, not how the program worked once the data "got there".

>I agree, it's not TMG's responsibility to protect the data when it comes
>to *basic* GEDCOM being imported falsely by another program. But I still
>believe, that *stretching* the guidelines to include information which
>GEDCOM wasn't really designed for (and that is, IMO, what is basically
>being asked in this whole discussion) could produce extremely unwanted
>results which *we might not be aware of* if we don't know the importing
>program. The specific program I mentioned was just meant as an extreme
>example of what might happen to our carefully entered data.

I believe that you are quite right, if the attempt to export is to a
structured tag.

>When it comes to converting witness tags to GEDCOM Notes, I would have to
>refer to Terry Reigel's post a couple of days ago, who pointed out the
>difficulties connected with that possibility better than I ever could (the
>old: *I know what I mean* - problem :-) ).
>
>Astrid

Terry made some excellent points about the difficulties that arise if one
wishes to create an "event" tag (his phrase, not meaning the EVEN tag in
GEDCOM -- he was being more general). However, he discusses how to name the
"role" of the witness, how to name the "event", how to describe the
"event", and how to decide what the text should be, all as problems. None
of these, except how to decide what the text should be, are relevant to a
NOTE tag.

The GEDCOM NOTE tag as I have suggested it be used would be tied only to
the individual. It does not have a date or a place unless they are included
in the text, and the tag name is just "NOTE". Unlike the EVEN tag, there is
not even a "type". TMG exports Biography tags to NOTE tags this way, and
the two programs I have available to test import the text with aplomb, both
as "Notes". If the text is defined as "the output of the tag witness
sentence, with citations if any appended", then the output is not
ambiguous, and is at least as accurate as a printed report.

However, Bob V. has made it clear that TMG witness data will not be
exported via GEDCOM.

Darrell


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



This thread: