TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012945826


From: "Richard Damon" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 16:50:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020205150404.013503b0@pop3.norton.antivirus>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Hoffman [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:16 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
>
>
> Richard Damon wrote:
> >GEDCOM output could be set to several different levels.
> >
> >Basic output level would be similar to what we have now, but any tags not
> >marked compatible with basic GEDCOM would be excluded. These
> tags would be
> >any tag which connect two or more people other then by familial
> >relationship. Tags would only be generated for the principals as they are
> >now.
>
> This is already available in TMG.
>

Yes, my basic is like what TMG currently puts out but limited to only tags
marked safe

> >Intermediate output level would output a tag for every Key
> Participant. Thus
> >a census tag could exist once in TMG and generate multiple tags
> in GEDCOM.
> >The event-type definition would need to indicate if the tag should be put
> >into a family if it exists, or possible create a family (like a marriage
> >group tag). Otherwise tags would not be linked together as GEDCOM has no
> >support for this. An enhancement might be to allow specifying differing
> >GEDCOM output tags for each role. Non-key participants (like Witnesses)
> >would be ignored.
>
> This may be done in TMG now.

This can not be done now. This was for all Key-Participants, which can
include non-principals. Currently TMG can only generate a GEDCOM tag for the
principals of an event.
For example, Joe and his wife and 2 kids as well as his brother immigrate to
America. I can create one Immigration tag in TMG and attach the whole group
to it. TMG at best will make the tag a family tag and leave the brother in
the old world. If we give each person their own immigration tag we at least
preserve the fact they immigrated to America, we just lose the fact they
came together. This loss is expected because GEDCOM can not express that
relationship. Yes I could give each person their own tag in TMG but then I
lose the information in TMG that they traveled together, or I need to have
redundant tags in TMG (and redundancy invites error).
>
> >Advanced output level (if implemented) would output a tag for every
> >participant (for non-key participants it would likely be just a
> note) with a
> >note attached with a sentence built like a report.
>
> This may be done in TMG now if the _user_ enters the information into Tag
> Memo fields. Bob Velke has specifically stated that he does not plan to
> create narrative data for placement into GEDCOM as he feels that
> this would
> reduce the integrity of the data. But if the user entered the narrative
> data, then the integrity theoretically would not be reduced. (I say
> "theoretically" because of (1) entry error and (2) how another program
> interprets the data (_if_ it does).
>

I understand Bob position (which is why I conditioned the level) but I
disagree with him. To do this now in TMG requires, again, redundant tags as
the note may be different for each participant, and the people most in need
of the memo are not outputted currently. It may be possible to write a
utility like John's to do this but as it requires information saved about
each role of every tag type it would be much more convenient if it were
built in.

> ----------
> Lee Hoffman/KY
> E-mail:
> TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
> My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
> --------------
> A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)
>
--
Redirector to current best:
Home:
Work:



This thread: