There would be no problem at all if users have a choice to use the extra field or not. It would be great to have this field for Dutch users though. I think it's no problem to add this field to either the first name or the lastname field in a Gedcom export or import so that's no problem at all. Why not give the users who need this field the extra name field? Others who don't need this field could just choose to not use this field or add the information in this field to either the first name or the last name. During an import Legacy should give the option to import this extra field to either the first name or the last name or to the extra name field so that would be no problem either. I would use this field to store my patronyms (last name before 1811 and due to Napoleon a lot of Dutch people had to choose a family lastname so a lot of people born before this date are know by two different last names, the patronym and the surname they had to choose because of Napoleon). And I understood that a lot of Scandinavian users would store their farmnames (there are also farmnames in the Netherlands) in this field to be able to search on these names. Legacy is going international and it would be nice if there would be some international features in Legacy and not only features for the American or English speaking users. We (Dutch, Scandinavian, Spanish, German and possibly some other international users) didn't ask for more than one extra field and I think it's not fair of some users to write about more than 10 name fields or just one name field to store all the information in just because we were asking for a practical solution to store a certain part of our family names in and be able to search this extra field. I'm using a Dutch genealogy program and this program has an option for patronyms (this program adds this as the last part of the first name in a gedcom export) and this program has never given any problems in a gedcom export or import to or from other programs (except the "normal" problems). It just adds the extra name field to another part of the name. The only problem is that using this gedcom you won't be able to restore the patronym in the patronymfield after an export to a gedcom. But that isn't necessary because all programs have the option to export to different format's. Legacy could export to the legacy format to keep the extra name field during export. And other programs don't have this extra name field so you wouldn't be able to import it anyway. Evert
----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Weed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:00 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] GEDCOM-Centric > John, As a "background lurker" I have been following > this discusion of the GEDcom and must completely agree > with you the the GEDcom is a necessary evil. > It is an accepted way for various programs to > communicate, abet not perfectly. If we add or > subtract from the "standard" GEDcom there will be > problems. And one thing this world does not need is > more problems. I do not see the necessity for a middle > name with the AKA, prefix and suffix, and the ability > to put more than one name on a line. To change Legacy > in that manner would not be wise. > Barb > --- "John R. Bayle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lee Irons wrote: > > > > > GEDCOMs are the genealogy software industry's > > answer to software > > developers > > > getting along with each other. > > > > > > NOT! > > > > And similar attacks on the GEDCOM standard. I > > wonder if Lee subsequently > > read > > Terry Foxcraft's posting where he/she wrote: > > > > > I'm importing some data from Generations into > > Legacy (more on that later) > > > and I noticed a bug with importing sources from > > Gedcom. > > > > Does Legacy import Generations' or FTM's files > > directly? Not to my > > knowlege. > > Thus if someone wants to change from one Gen program > > to another, they NEED > > GEDCOM to get the data out of their old program into > > their new, unless of > > course > > they want to retype all their information over again > > into the new gen > > program. > > > > I use three different Gen programs, and use GEDCOM > > to move data between > > them. I'm also the only one in my family using > > Legacy. The cousins and > > brother-in-law > > I share research with use FTM. They don't want to > > learn another gen > > program. > > I don't want to antagonize them by insisting on them > > changing their gen > > program, > > or at least learning to use a new one. > > > > I'm very much aware of GEDCOM's limitations. I very > > well know that it is > > very > > far from perfect. But it IS usable and does provide > > a workable means of > > exchanging > > large amounts of genealogy data quickly. I've also > > found that some > > relatively > > simple programming can often reduce the amount of > > errors in a GEDCOM > > "transmission" by a very great amount. > > > > I am one (I believe the first one) who disagreed > > with Kristian about the > > desireability > > of having a "Middle Name" field added to the current > > name structure, partly > > on the basis > > of incompatibility with GEDCOM. As Kristian has > > written he had a rebuttal > > about > > using user defined tags. My re-rebuttal was that it > > is precisely at those > > user defined > > tags that the wheels begin to come off of the GEDCOM > > data transfer > > mechanism. > > > > I believe Kristian and I have agreed to disagree at > > this point. > > > > The GEDCOM standard does have 8 pieces of what they > > call the > > "Personal_Name_Structure" Legacy use 4 of the 6 > > items that are defined to > > be > > used for pieces of a name. The other two parts of > > the name structure are > > the > > source citation (which Legacy already uses) and a > > Note sub-structure which > > Legacy does not use. None of the 6 items defined to > > be part of the name > > are "Middle" name. However, there is a NICKNAME > > field. Now the > > Nickname field could be used as a "Middle name" or > > as a Farm name, besides > > being used as a nickname. > > Or the "Notes structure" could be implemented by > > legacy and then that > > Notes structure could be used for a variety of > > things, including my > > "unstructured name" and/or the > > call-it-what-you-want-to name. > > > > My view of the situation is that no matter how many > > fields are in the name > > structure, someone will want another. So ideally > > Legacy could implement > > the Full name structure of the GEDCOM standard, > > adding two more > > pieces to the structure, and a Notes sub-structure > > which would allow a > > user to put practically anything into the Name > > Structure. The two more > > pieces would cut down the number of users wanting to > > add another piece, > > while the notes sub-structure would allow folks to > > do whatever they d--n > > well pleased! > > > > > > jr > > > > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found > > at: > > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable > > archives at: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > > > To unsubscribe please visit: > > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > To unsubscribe please visit: > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
