TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-07 > 1057067456


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] TMG GEDCOM
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:50:56 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1d7.cad82f0.2c32991f@aol.com>


wrote:
>Caroline and others have asked why it matters to me that TMG GEDCOM export
>amalgamates data from custom source elements?

Are you sure that you understand what a Source Element is? It is
essentially an alias or synonym for the Source Element Group in which the
Source Element is assigned. In other words, you design a Source Template
with Source Elements that then more or less prompt you to enter certain
data in various screens of the Source Definition. Since it is recognized
that the Source Element Groups alone would not be meaningful prompts, it
was decided to allow the use of aliases or synonyms (Source Elements)
assigned to the Source Element Groups and to allow the user to create
additional Custom Source Elements as needed.

>I am a computer enthusiast. A computer stores, sorts, searches and outputs my
>information more efficiently than my brain. But it is only a tool. I have no
>loyalty to software and use it only as long as it is of use to me. In a
>database I look for stability and for economy of input. I do not like
>having to
>enter the same information in more than one place.

I think most of the people here would agree whole-heartedly.

>I should indeed like some choice as to how TMG exports source TAGS not
>included in the GEDCOM standard. Many genealogy programmes (including TMG)
>can
>handle the import of non standard tags, allowing the user to take
>decisions as to
>their destination field. The current TMG GEDCOM export removes this
>possibility. I would hope to preserve as a discreet field, the file
>reference number in
>the source record and to be able to read it on screen in its entirety.

Well, I might agree if GEDCOM provided much latitude on the exporting of
source data. The GEDCOM "standard" is written in such an ambiguous manner
and thus implemented in so many ways by vendors that it really is not a
viable "standard". That it works well for transferring basic data often
masks the problems that others have of trying to transfer information
without data loss. At best, when there is data loss, a program will give
you an error list of GEDCOM file lines that the program could not interpret
for one reason or another. But many programs do not give that error list.

As I noted, the "standard" is very ambiguous. Part of the reason for this
is that many terms used in the "standard" do not have a precise
meaning. Ask a dozen genealogists (in one country) the meaning of a
certain term and you will probably get a dozen and a half answers. Now add
to this that there are _many_ countries and that complicates the problem
considerably. In addition to this, some vendors refused to participate in
any meaningful dialog so that some consensus could be reached in this area
(their participation would cost their company money - regardless of whether
it would help the product).

There is an on-going effort to standardize the terms used in
genealogy. One of the members of that group is Bob Velke, president of
Wholly Genes. Part of their effort is the GENTECH Genealogy Data Model
(GDM). This is the first time that genealogy had been put into a data
model. Many genealogy programs are not using GDM as the basis for updates
to their programs. However, it cannot be used to update GEDCOM since that
is no longer being updated as I explained earlier.

>In genealogy I have twice chosen and used excellent software only to find
>that it was not further developed, or was (in the case of Generations)
>bought up
>by a commercial competitor.

Apparently you are a relative new-comer to the scene. Many of us here
would say "only twice?". I would guess that at least a dozen programs have
started, appeared to be headed in the right direction, and disappeared for
various reasons.

>I use few TAGS and ensure that I am not tied to
>or trapped in any programme.

I understand your reasoning. But to some degree you are limiting yourself
to the use of features and functions that are used by most programs. TMG
has consistently led the way toward better genealogy programs. And it has
done it in a way that allows the user to retain their data (subject to the
vagaries of GEDCOM and its implementation in other programs) during a
transfer. In addition, it has created a technology in which other
programs can read TMG data directly (GenBridge) just like TMG can read the
data from many other programs.

>My main reservations about TMG are 1. It will not allow one to import a
>GEDCOM into an existing data set which one has already set up to receive
>the in
>coming source types and fields.

No, that is a safety measure to protect data that may already be in a data
set. The effort to modify a data set before import would be almost the
same as the effort to modify the data set after the import. Thus there is
very little difference in the effort involved.

>2. As a result, it obliges me to re-edit all my
>sources and then fails to preserve all that laborious re-editing in the
>GEDCOM
>source output (though I agree it preserves the actual data entered).

No genealogy program today can import data from any other program without
some editing. All programs provide different capabilities as to what the
user can do with the program. TMG tends to have a grater list of
capabilities than most other programs, but a user may choose not to take
advantage of all those capabilities.

>In the
>meantime I have two files on TMG. It's handling of sources does not fit my
>preferred practise but is usable and otherwise it suits me well.. though
>it tends
>to focus my attention on the father of the family. I miss having the wife
>alongside and equal to her husband on screen.

Have you tried creating a side-by-side Layout? In this way you have two
instances of TMG and your data open at the same time. You might try the
Layouts available onthe TMG Tips web site (URL below). These are designed
for a 1024x768 resolution monitor and thus you may need to adjust them
somewhat for the resolution of your monitor.

Hope this helps -

Lee Hoffman/KY
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)

This thread: