TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-03 > 1078322611


From: "Sutton, Scot G." <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] FTM Import and Footnotes
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 09:03:33 -0500


Jim,

Can you please cite the reference from which you have determined that manually entering a footnote in FTM is "non-standard". It is simply an allowed option of the program. If it were to be considered non-standard, then so would much of the information entered into TMG. So, does that mean that TMG users should not use such options as roles, flags, split citations, etc. because it may come back to bite them if they ever need to migrate to a new program? I would hope that if I ever feel the need to migrate away from TMG (assuming I ever get migrated to it), the reason would be that there is a better program available and that the better program would allow me to easily transfer ALL of my data stored in TMG to the new program. At a minimum I would hope that the conversion process would provide a useful log of any data omitted or altered during the conversion. Such is not the case with the GenBridge FTM to TMG conversion at this time.

BTW, WG bent over backwards to make sure that the migration from UFT to TMG included all of the user's data. Why is the same consideration not shown to FTM users who wish to migrate? Are we less important because of the program we initially chose to use?

Scot

-----Original Message-----
From:Jim Byram [SMTP:]
Sent:Tuesday, March 02, 2004 11:54 AM
To:
Subject:Re: [TMG] FTM Import and Footnotes


You basically chose to enter your data in FTM in a non-standard way to
control how sources were output to reports. Which is fine. Now that you are
trying to move your data out of FTM to another program, those practices have
come back to bite you.

Jim



This thread: