RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Thank you Geoff and Dave! I use TNG for web publishing and up till now have abandoned using SourceWriter because of the output to gedcom and subsequent formatting of sources in TNG. Jennifer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Geoff Rasmussen Sent: Saturday, 16 August 2008 2:56 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output Dave and I met about this yesterday and have some ideas. First of all, one of our great challenges when developing the SourceWriter was to ensure that no information is lost when sharing via GEDCOM. Because the GEDCOM standard does not have specific fields for the specific SourceWriter fields, Legacy has to "break apart" the nice EE-style citations into the source fields as accepted by GEDCOM, namely title, author, publication, etc. So, while no SourceWriter information is lost, the formatting is not retained when exporting. But...the SourceWriter citations are so nice :) that it'd sure be great if when publishing to the web, such as to TNG, WorldConnect, and other GEDCOM-based publishing cites, that Legacy's SourceWriter citations were preserved. Therefore, we have some ideas about adding a new GEDCOM Export option. When you go to the GEDCOM Export screen, we could add new choice under the "Produce File For" drop-down list called "The Web" or "GEDCOM-based publishing" or something like that. With this option selected, when the GEDCOM is uploaded to the site of choice, the entire citation will read as it is displayed in the Footnote/Endnote Citation of the output preview. This new export option would also set certain privacy defaults and others. If this makes sense to any of you, would this solution be adequate? Thanks, Geoff Rasmussen Millennia Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LegacyFamilyTree.com === From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gail Nestor Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:41 AM To: Legacy User Group Subject: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output Do you happen to find yourself in the following three categories? 1) You use Legacy v7 sourcewriter and have converted some/all of your sources 2) You publish to the web using TNG 3) You strongly desire to have these sources formatted according to Evidence Explained If so, please note that the gedcom output from Legacy does not lend itself to formatting the same way the web site as it does in Legacy reports. I was so excited that Legacy came up with sourcewriter and that we could finally format our sources the way that the professional genealogy field does. The sourcewriter tool is easy to use and I think it's going to help many people get over a fear of sourcing. This is all great! However, for those of us who publish to the web, all is lost in the translation to gedcom. This is a huge disappointment to me! We must either find a way to get TNG to re-format the gedcom data or find a way to have Legacy export the sources in the same way they are presented on the screen. I am at a loss on how to proceed. I have converted 3/4 of my census data to the new source format, but on my TNG website, these sources are still a mess. If you would like to respond off-line, I would sure love to have some fellow collaborators on working out this issue. Thanks, Gail Rich Nestor Smyrna, Georgia www.roots2buds.net Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Geoff: That sounds like a great solution to me - especially if you have an option to export to TNG. Thanks for your efforts! Gene == At 11:56 AM 8/15/2008, you wrote: Dave and I met about this yesterday and have some ideas. First of all, one of our great challenges when developing the SourceWriter was to ensure that no information is lost when sharing via GEDCOM. Because the GEDCOM standard does not have specific fields for the specific SourceWriter fields, Legacy has to "break apart" the nice EE-style citations into the source fields as accepted by GEDCOM, namely title, author, publication, etc. So, while no SourceWriter information is lost, the formatting is not retained when exporting. But...the SourceWriter citations are so nice :) that it'd sure be great if when publishing to the web, such as to TNG, WorldConnect, and other GEDCOM-based publishing cites, that Legacy's SourceWriter citations were preserved. Therefore, we have some ideas about adding a new GEDCOM Export option. When you go to the GEDCOM Export screen, we could add new choice under the "Produce File For" drop-down list called "The Web" or "GEDCOM-based publishing" or something like that. With this option selected, when the GEDCOM is uploaded to the site of choice, the entire citation will read as it is displayed in the Footnote/Endnote Citation of the output preview. This new export option would also set certain privacy defaults and others. If this makes sense to any of you, would this solution be adequate? Thanks, Geoff Rasmussen Millennia Corporation Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Geoff, that sounds like a very well thought out and effective way to correct the issue of the export. Well done. On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Geoff Rasmussen < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave and I met about this yesterday and have some ideas. > > First of all, one of our great challenges when developing the SourceWriter > was to ensure that no information is lost when sharing via GEDCOM. Because > the GEDCOM standard does not have specific fields for the specific > SourceWriter fields, Legacy has to "break apart" the nice EE-style citations > into the source fields as accepted by GEDCOM, namely title, author, > publication, etc. So, while no SourceWriter information is lost, the > formatting is not retained when exporting. > > But...the SourceWriter citations are so nice :) that it'd sure be great if > when publishing to the web, such as to TNG, WorldConnect, and other > GEDCOM-based publishing cites, that Legacy's SourceWriter citations were > preserved. > > Therefore, we have some ideas about adding a new GEDCOM Export option. When > you go to the GEDCOM Export screen, we could add new choice under the > "Produce File For" drop-down list called "The Web" or "GEDCOM-based > publishing" or something like that. With this option selected, when the > GEDCOM is uploaded to the site of choice, the entire citation will read as > it is displayed in the Footnote/Endnote Citation of the output preview. This > new export option would also set certain privacy defaults and others. > > If this makes sense to any of you, would this solution be adequate? > > Thanks, > > Geoff Rasmussen > Millennia Corporation > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.LegacyFamilyTree.com <http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/> > === > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gail Nestor > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:41 AM > To: Legacy User Group > Subject: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output > > Do you happen to find yourself in the following three categories? > > 1) You use Legacy v7 sourcewriter and have converted some/all of your > sources > 2) You publish to the web using TNG > 3) You strongly desire to have these sources formatted according to > Evidence Explained > > If so, please note that the gedcom output from Legacy does not lend itself > to formatting the same way the web site as it does in Legacy reports. I was > so excited that Legacy came up with sourcewriter and that we could finally > format our sources the way that the professional genealogy field does. The > sourcewriter tool is easy to use and I think it's going to help many people > get over a fear of sourcing. > > This is all great! However, for those of us who publish to the web, all is > lost in the translation to gedcom. This is a huge disappointment to me! We > must either find a way to get TNG to re-format the gedcom data or find a way > to have Legacy export the sources in the same way they are presented on the > screen. > > I am at a loss on how to proceed. I have converted 3/4 of my census data > to the new source format, but on my TNG website, these sources are still a > mess. If you would like to respond off-line, I would sure love to have some > fellow collaborators on working out this issue. > > Thanks, > > Gail Rich Nestor > Smyrna, Georgia > www.roots2buds.net > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp<http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Etiquette.asp> > Archived messages: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp<http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/Help.asp> > To unsubscribe: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp<http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp> > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Jenny, I'm not sure. If this were possible, the entire citation that you create using the override option would all belong to the detail instead of a master source. And there has to first be a master source. An interesting suggestion that we can discuss. Thank you. Thanks, Geoff Rasmussen Millennia Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LegacyFamilyTree.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jenny M Benson Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 10:52 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output Geoff Rasmussen wrote >With this option selected, when the GEDCOM is uploaded to the site of >choice, the entire citation will read as it is displayed in the >Footnote/Endnote Citation of the output preview. Would it be possible to have something similar within Legacy so that one can type in a complete Source Citation, primary and subsequent versions, rather than use Templates? (In other words, something like the Overrides screen.) ESM gives examples of numerous Citations, many of which can be reproduced using SourceWriter Templates - but not all. It is not possible to replicate these Citations using the Basic Style. I realise we have the Overrides screen now, but this can't be accessed without using a Master Source first and there are occasions when I would like to be able to go directly to the Overrides screen. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Geoff Rasmussen wrote With this option selected, when the GEDCOM is uploaded to the site of choice, the entire citation will read as it is displayed in the Footnote/Endnote Citation of the output preview. Would it be possible to have something similar within Legacy so that one can type in a complete Source Citation, primary and subsequent versions, rather than use Templates? (In other words, something like the Overrides screen.) ESM gives examples of numerous Citations, many of which can be reproduced using SourceWriter Templates - but not all. It is not possible to replicate these Citations using the Basic Style. I realise we have the Overrides screen now, but this can't be accessed without using a Master Source first and there are occasions when I would like to be able to go directly to the Overrides screen. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Hi Geoff, that sounds wonderful to me!! I would be glad to be a tester for this if you have need for that kind of help. Also, there is another guy who uses Legacy and TNG and who is also a good programmer (better than I am anyway!). He said he would work with me on the TNG end to see if we could manipulate the gedcom data a bit. However, I like it being on Legacy's end a lot better. Thanks so much for hearing this request. I remain fiercely loyal to Legacy and I have really, really enjoyed the new source-writer so far! Gail Rich Nestor Smyrna, Georgia www.roots2buds.net On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Geoff Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dave and I met about this yesterday and have some ideas. > > First of all, one of our great challenges when developing the SourceWriter > was to ensure that no information is lost when sharing via GEDCOM. Because > the GEDCOM standard does not have specific fields for the specific > SourceWriter fields, Legacy has to "break apart" the nice EE-style citations > into the source fields as accepted by GEDCOM, namely title, author, > publication, etc. So, while no SourceWriter information is lost, the > formatting is not retained when exporting. > > But...the SourceWriter citations are so nice :) that it'd sure be great if > when publishing to the web, such as to TNG, WorldConnect, and other > GEDCOM-based publishing cites, that Legacy's SourceWriter citations were > preserved. > > Therefore, we have some ideas about adding a new GEDCOM Export option. When > you go to the GEDCOM Export screen, we could add new choice under the > "Produce File For" drop-down list called "The Web" or "GEDCOM-based > publishing" or something like that. With this option selected, when the > GEDCOM is uploaded to the site of choice, the entire citation will read as it > is displayed in the Footnote/Endnote Citation of the output preview. This new > export option would also set certain privacy defaults and others. > > If this makes sense to any of you, would this solution be adequate? > > Thanks, > > Geoff Rasmussen > Millennia Corporation > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.LegacyFamilyTree.com > === > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gail Nestor > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:41 AM > To: Legacy User Group > Subject: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output > > Do you happen to find yourself in the following three categories? > > 1) You use Legacy v7 sourcewriter and have converted some/all of your sources > 2) You publish to the web using TNG > 3) You strongly desire to have these sources formatted according to Evidence > Explained > > If so, please note that the gedcom output from Legacy does not lend itself to > formatting the same way the web site as it does in Legacy reports. I was so > excited that Legacy came up with sourcewriter and that we could finally > format our sources the way that the professional genealogy field does. The > sourcewriter tool is easy to use and I think it's going to help many people > get over a fear of sourcing. > > This is all great! However, for those of us who publish to the web, all is > lost in the translation to gedcom. This is a huge disappointment to me! We > must either find a way to get TNG to re-format the gedcom data or find a way > to have Legacy export the sources in the same way they are presented on the > screen. > > I am at a loss on how to proceed. I have converted 3/4 of my census data to > the new source format, but on my TNG website, these sources are still a mess. > If you would like to respond off-line, I would sure love to have some fellow > collaborators on working out this issue. > > Thanks, > > Gail Rich Nestor > Smyrna, Georgia > www.roots2buds.net > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Dave and I met about this yesterday and have some ideas. First of all, one of our great challenges when developing the SourceWriter was to ensure that no information is lost when sharing via GEDCOM. Because the GEDCOM standard does not have specific fields for the specific SourceWriter fields, Legacy has to "break apart" the nice EE-style citations into the source fields as accepted by GEDCOM, namely title, author, publication, etc. So, while no SourceWriter information is lost, the formatting is not retained when exporting. But...the SourceWriter citations are so nice :) that it'd sure be great if when publishing to the web, such as to TNG, WorldConnect, and other GEDCOM-based publishing cites, that Legacy's SourceWriter citations were preserved. Therefore, we have some ideas about adding a new GEDCOM Export option. When you go to the GEDCOM Export screen, we could add new choice under the "Produce File For" drop-down list called "The Web" or "GEDCOM-based publishing" or something like that. With this option selected, when the GEDCOM is uploaded to the site of choice, the entire citation will read as it is displayed in the Footnote/Endnote Citation of the output preview. This new export option would also set certain privacy defaults and others. If this makes sense to any of you, would this solution be adequate? Thanks, Geoff Rasmussen Millennia Corporation [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.LegacyFamilyTree.com === From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gail Nestor Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:41 AM To: Legacy User Group Subject: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output Do you happen to find yourself in the following three categories? 1) You use Legacy v7 sourcewriter and have converted some/all of your sources 2) You publish to the web using TNG 3) You strongly desire to have these sources formatted according to Evidence Explained If so, please note that the gedcom output from Legacy does not lend itself to formatting the same way the web site as it does in Legacy reports. I was so excited that Legacy came up with sourcewriter and that we could finally format our sources the way that the professional genealogy field does. The sourcewriter tool is easy to use and I think it's going to help many people get over a fear of sourcing. This is all great! However, for those of us who publish to the web, all is lost in the translation to gedcom. This is a huge disappointment to me! We must either find a way to get TNG to re-format the gedcom data or find a way to have Legacy export the sources in the same way they are presented on the screen. I am at a loss on how to proceed. I have converted 3/4 of my census data to the new source format, but on my TNG website, these sources are still a mess. If you would like to respond off-line, I would sure love to have some fellow collaborators on working out this issue. Thanks, Gail Rich Nestor Smyrna, Georgia www.roots2buds.net Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Until the major national and international genealogical Societies and Journals agree on one style of sourcing there will be no "standard". Such agreement is about as likely as Rev. Phelps or Osama Bin Laden being elected Pope. - Original Message From: Kirsten Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 6:00:32 PM Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output Your point about there being no one answer to sourcing is absolutely true, and therein lies the problem. There are established standards for source citations in other fields (law, science, journalism, literature, etc.) and I believe they're internationally-accepted, but none of these fit genealogical sourcing very well. All Ms. Mills has done is to study the various styles, pick elements from each that work for genealogy, and propose a new standard. Eventually a genealogical standard will be accepted. It may be "EE-style" or it may be something else, and it may be years away, but I'm pretty confident that it will happen. Meanwhile, the Legacy templates are a great tool to help us muddle through--and independent souls can continue to do their own thing. Kirsten Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
I agree. When I first started (genealogy on computers)in the early 1980's, the PAF solution for sourcing was to put an '!' in front of the source words in the notes. I switched because I didn't see the need to do even that. Rich in LA CA --- Kirsten Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ron: > > Regarding the second paragraph of your post: When > the gedcom format was > created sourcing was not a particularly important > issue but things have > changed. To illustrate, my 414-page manual for FTM > 2.0 (ca 1994) contains a > whole 1-1/2 pages on recording sources. I haven't > counted the sourcing > pages in Legacy's new manual but I'm sure it's a > good deal more than that. > With that sort of evolution, I'd vote for the newer > "authorities" as being > more correct than the older ones. > > Your point about there being no one answer to > sourcing is absolutely true, > and therein lies the problem. There are established > standards for source > citations in other fields (law, science, journalism, > literature, etc.) and I > believe they're internationally-accepted, but none > of these fit genealogical > sourcing very well. All Ms. Mills has done is to > study the various styles, > pick elements from each that work for genealogy, and > propose a new standard. > Eventually a genealogical standard will be accepted. > It may be "EE-style" > or it may be something else, and it may be years > away, but I'm pretty > confident that it will happen. Meanwhile, the > Legacy templates are a great > tool to help us muddle through--and independent > souls can continue to do > their own thing. > > Kirsten > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of ronald > ferguson > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:20 PM > To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting > lost in gedcom > output > > > > Gail, > > You may well be right. As I think you probably know, > I have little time for > prescribed or even proscribed formats, having only > one belief, and that is > that the sourcing must be clear and reproducible. > Even so I have tried out > most of the templates which relate to my sources, > and have mixed views > regarding the output. I have decided to change some > eg. English censuses and > BMDs, but am still considering others. > > Your comment re Gedcom structure does, however, lead > to an interesting > question and that is: what is the correct format for > a source - that upon > which the body which created the Gedcom format used > or Mrs Mills? Whichever, > it does illustrate that there is no one answer to > sourcing. > > > Ron Ferguson > > _ > > Update your British Prime Ministers Timeline - Blogs > http://www.fergys.co.uk > View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: > http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ > For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ > _ > > > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > To unsubscribe: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Ron: Regarding the second paragraph of your post: When the gedcom format was created sourcing was not a particularly important issue but things have changed. To illustrate, my 414-page manual for FTM 2.0 (ca 1994) contains a whole 1-1/2 pages on recording sources. I haven't counted the sourcing pages in Legacy's new manual but I'm sure it's a good deal more than that. With that sort of evolution, I'd vote for the newer "authorities" as being more correct than the older ones. Your point about there being no one answer to sourcing is absolutely true, and therein lies the problem. There are established standards for source citations in other fields (law, science, journalism, literature, etc.) and I believe they're internationally-accepted, but none of these fit genealogical sourcing very well. All Ms. Mills has done is to study the various styles, pick elements from each that work for genealogy, and propose a new standard. Eventually a genealogical standard will be accepted. It may be "EE-style" or it may be something else, and it may be years away, but I'm pretty confident that it will happen. Meanwhile, the Legacy templates are a great tool to help us muddle through--and independent souls can continue to do their own thing. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ronald ferguson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:20 PM To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output Gail, You may well be right. As I think you probably know, I have little time for prescribed or even proscribed formats, having only one belief, and that is that the sourcing must be clear and reproducible. Even so I have tried out most of the templates which relate to my sources, and have mixed views regarding the output. I have decided to change some eg. English censuses and BMDs, but am still considering others. Your comment re Gedcom structure does, however, lead to an interesting question and that is: what is the correct format for a source - that upon which the body which created the Gedcom format used or Mrs Mills? Whichever, it does illustrate that there is no one answer to sourcing. Ron Ferguson _ Update your British Prime Ministers Timeline - Blogs http://www.fergys.co.uk View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ _ Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Gail, You may well be right. As I think you probably know, I have little time for prescribed or even proscribed formats, having only one belief, and that is that the sourcing must be clear and reproducible. Even so I have tried out most of the templates which relate to my sources, and have mixed views regarding the output. I have decided to change some eg. English censuses and BMDs, but am still considering others. Your comment re Gedcom structure does, however, lead to an interesting question and that is: what is the correct format for a source - that upon which the body which created the Gedcom format used or Mrs Mills? Whichever, it does illustrate that there is no one answer to sourcing. Ron Ferguson _ Update your British Prime Ministers Timeline - Blogs http://www.fergys.co.uk View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ _ > Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 15:38:34 -0400 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output > > I think Legacy's gedcom format is not the problem. It's just that a > gedcom file strips away all the formatting that Legacy uses to create > the nice EE-style citations. One example is that the US census > template asks for Jurisdiction State in one field and Jurisdiction > County in another. In the gedcom tag, it shows up as "1 AUTH State, > County" whereas in the EE-style source output, these two components > would be presented in the reverse order. > > This would be easy enough to fix on the back end. However, other > gedcom components would take some serious programming changes to > re-arrange. I am in the midst of asking TNG to consider implementing > some of these. In the mean time, I still think Legacy's sourcewriter > is awesome. I just wish the gedcom did not make such a mess of > things. It would be nice if each of the template components could go > to its own gedcom line and tag and then the back-end programming would > not be so complicated. > > Gail Rich Nestor > Smyrna, Georgia > www.roots2buds.net > > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ronald ferguson wrote: >> >> Kirsten, >> >> I do not use WorldConnect and although I have trees on Ancestry I haven't >> used them for a long time (now well out of date!), so I actually don't know, >> but there is no reason to suppose that they will not produce good results. >> >> TNG uses a particular type of web coding and it is quite possible that it >> does not know how to handle the current Legacy Gedom output. It does not >> follow that this will apply to other types of coding. I recently transferred >> a Gedcom from Legacy to another program and this transferred OK, so it would >> seem that the basic Legacy Gedcom 5.5 is OK. >> >> >> Ron Ferguson >> >> _ >> >> Update your British Prime Ministers Timeline - Blogs >> http://www.fergys.co.uk >> View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: >> http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ >> For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: >> http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ >> _ >> >> >> >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com >>> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output >>> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:17:56 -0700 >>> >>> Gail: >>> >>> What a crushing disappointment! I don't have a website, but as I've worked >>> away at converting sources I've also wondered how they will appear when >>> posted at RootsWeb's WorldConnect via gedcom. (I haven't tried it yet >>> because of the source repetition bug.) I wasn't expecting a perfect >>> translation, but was hoping they wouldn't turn into unintelligible garbage. >>> I'm curious about whether anyone else has tried updating a WorldConnect >>> tree with SourceWriter-generated citations. >>> >>> Kirsten >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail Nestor >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:41 AM >>> To: Legacy User Group >>> Subject: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output >>> >>> >>> Do you
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Ron: Thanks for the encouraging report. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of ronald ferguson Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:26 AM To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output Kirsten, I do not use WorldConnect and although I have trees on Ancestry I haven't used them for a long time (now well out of date!), so I actually don't know, but there is no reason to suppose that they will not produce good results. TNG uses a particular type of web coding and it is quite possible that it does not know how to handle the current Legacy Gedom output. It does not follow that this will apply to other types of coding. I recently transferred a Gedcom from Legacy to another program and this transferred OK, so it would seem that the basic Legacy Gedcom 5.5 is OK. Ron Ferguson _ Update your British Prime Ministers Timeline - Blogs http://www.fergys.co.uk View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ _ Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
I think Legacy's gedcom format is not the problem. It's just that a gedcom file strips away all the formatting that Legacy uses to create the nice EE-style citations. One example is that the US census template asks for Jurisdiction State in one field and Jurisdiction County in another. In the gedcom tag, it shows up as "1 AUTH State, County" whereas in the EE-style source output, these two components would be presented in the reverse order. This would be easy enough to fix on the back end. However, other gedcom components would take some serious programming changes to re-arrange. I am in the midst of asking TNG to consider implementing some of these. In the mean time, I still think Legacy's sourcewriter is awesome. I just wish the gedcom did not make such a mess of things. It would be nice if each of the template components could go to its own gedcom line and tag and then the back-end programming would not be so complicated. Gail Rich Nestor Smyrna, Georgia www.roots2buds.net On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:26 PM, ronald ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Kirsten, > > I do not use WorldConnect and although I have trees on Ancestry I haven't > used them for a long time (now well out of date!), so I actually don't know, > but there is no reason to suppose that they will not produce good results. > > TNG uses a particular type of web coding and it is quite possible that it > does not know how to handle the current Legacy Gedom output. It does not > follow that this will apply to other types of coding. I recently transferred > a Gedcom from Legacy to another program and this transferred OK, so it would > seem that the basic Legacy Gedcom 5.5 is OK. > > > Ron Ferguson > > _ > > Update your British Prime Ministers Timeline - Blogs > http://www.fergys.co.uk > View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: > http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ > For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: > http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ > _________ > > > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com >> Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output >> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:17:56 -0700 >> >> Gail: >> >> What a crushing disappointment! I don't have a website, but as I've worked >> away at converting sources I've also wondered how they will appear when >> posted at RootsWeb's WorldConnect via gedcom. (I haven't tried it yet >> because of the source repetition bug.) I wasn't expecting a perfect >> translation, but was hoping they wouldn't turn into unintelligible garbage. >> I'm curious about whether anyone else has tried updating a WorldConnect tree >> with SourceWriter-generated citations. >> >> Kirsten >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail Nestor >> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:41 AM >> To: Legacy User Group >> Subject: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output >> >> >> Do you happen to find yourself in the following three categories? >> >> 1) You use Legacy v7 sourcewriter and have converted some/all of your sources >> 2) You publish to the web using TNG >> 3) You strongly desire to have these sources formatted according to Evidence >> Explained >> >> If so, please note that the gedcom output from Legacy does not lend itself >> to formatting the same way the web site as it does in Legacy reports. I was >> so excited that Legacy came up with sourcewriter and that we could finally >> format our sources the way that the professional genealogy field does. The >> sourcewriter tool is easy to use and I think it's going to help many people >> get over a fear of sourcing. >> >> This is all great! However, for those of us who publish to the web, all is >> lost in the translation to gedcom. This is a huge disappointment to me! We >> must either find a way to get TNG to re-format the gedcom data or find a way >> to have Legacy export the sources in the same way they are presented on the >> screen. >> >> I am at a loss on how to proceed. I have converted 3/4 of my census data to >> the new source format, but on my TNG website, these sources are still a >> mess. If you would like to respond off-line, I would sure love to have some >> fellow collaborators on working out this issue. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Gail Rich Nestor >> Smyrna, Georgia >> www.roots2buds.net >> Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Kirsten, I do not use WorldConnect and although I have trees on Ancestry I haven't used them for a long time (now well out of date!), so I actually don't know, but there is no reason to suppose that they will not produce good results. TNG uses a particular type of web coding and it is quite possible that it does not know how to handle the current Legacy Gedom output. It does not follow that this will apply to other types of coding. I recently transferred a Gedcom from Legacy to another program and this transferred OK, so it would seem that the basic Legacy Gedcom 5.5 is OK. Ron Ferguson _ Update your British Prime Ministers Timeline - Blogs http://www.fergys.co.uk View the Grimshaw Family Tree at: http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/ For The Fergusons of N.W. England See: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/ _ > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com > Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output > Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:17:56 -0700 > > Gail: > > What a crushing disappointment! I don't have a website, but as I've worked > away at converting sources I've also wondered how they will appear when > posted at RootsWeb's WorldConnect via gedcom. (I haven't tried it yet because > of the source repetition bug.) I wasn't expecting a perfect translation, but > was hoping they wouldn't turn into unintelligible garbage. I'm curious about > whether anyone else has tried updating a WorldConnect tree with > SourceWriter-generated citations. > > Kirsten > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail Nestor > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:41 AM > To: Legacy User Group > Subject: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output > > > Do you happen to find yourself in the following three categories? > > 1) You use Legacy v7 sourcewriter and have converted some/all of your sources > 2) You publish to the web using TNG > 3) You strongly desire to have these sources formatted according to Evidence > Explained > > If so, please note that the gedcom output from Legacy does not lend itself to > formatting the same way the web site as it does in Legacy reports. I was so > excited that Legacy came up with sourcewriter and that we could finally > format our sources the way that the professional genealogy field does. The > sourcewriter tool is easy to use and I think it's going to help many people > get over a fear of sourcing. > > This is all great! However, for those of us who publish to the web, all is > lost in the translation to gedcom. This is a huge disappointment to me! We > must either find a way to get TNG to re-format the gedcom data or find a way > to have Legacy export the sources in the same way they are presented on the > screen. > > I am at a loss on how to proceed. I have converted 3/4 of my census data to > the new source format, but on my TNG website, these sources are still a mess. > If you would like to respond off-line, I would sure love to have some fellow > collaborators on working out this issue. > > Thanks, > > Gail Rich Nestor > Smyrna, Georgia > www.roots2buds.net > _ Find the best and worst places on the planet http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/101719807/direct/01/ Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Gail: What a crushing disappointment! I don't have a website, but as I've worked away at converting sources I've also wondered how they will appear when posted at RootsWeb's WorldConnect via gedcom. (I haven't tried it yet because of the source repetition bug.) I wasn't expecting a perfect translation, but was hoping they wouldn't turn into unintelligible garbage. I'm curious about whether anyone else has tried updating a WorldConnect tree with SourceWriter-generated citations. Kirsten -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gail Nestor Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:41 AM To: Legacy User Group Subject: [LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output Do you happen to find yourself in the following three categories? 1) You use Legacy v7 sourcewriter and have converted some/all of your sources 2) You publish to the web using TNG 3) You strongly desire to have these sources formatted according to Evidence Explained If so, please note that the gedcom output from Legacy does not lend itself to formatting the same way the web site as it does in Legacy reports. I was so excited that Legacy came up with sourcewriter and that we could finally format our sources the way that the professional genealogy field does. The sourcewriter tool is easy to use and I think it's going to help many people get over a fear of sourcing. This is all great! However, for those of us who publish to the web, all is lost in the translation to gedcom. This is a huge disappointment to me! We must either find a way to get TNG to re-format the gedcom data or find a way to have Legacy export the sources in the same way they are presented on the screen. I am at a loss on how to proceed. I have converted 3/4 of my census data to the new source format, but on my TNG website, these sources are still a mess. If you would like to respond off-line, I would sure love to have some fellow collaborators on working out this issue. Thanks, Gail Rich Nestor Smyrna, Georgia www.roots2buds.net Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
[LegacyUG] V7 Sources: Nifty formatting lost in gedcom output
Do you happen to find yourself in the following three categories? 1) You use Legacy v7 sourcewriter and have converted some/all of your sources 2) You publish to the web using TNG 3) You strongly desire to have these sources formatted according to Evidence Explained If so, please note that the gedcom output from Legacy does not lend itself to formatting the same way the web site as it does in Legacy reports. I was so excited that Legacy came up with sourcewriter and that we could finally format our sources the way that the professional genealogy field does. The sourcewriter tool is easy to use and I think it's going to help many people get over a fear of sourcing. This is all great! However, for those of us who publish to the web, all is lost in the translation to gedcom. This is a huge disappointment to me! We must either find a way to get TNG to re-format the gedcom data or find a way to have Legacy export the sources in the same way they are presented on the screen. I am at a loss on how to proceed. I have converted 3/4 of my census data to the new source format, but on my TNG website, these sources are still a mess. If you would like to respond off-line, I would sure love to have some fellow collaborators on working out this issue. Thanks, Gail Rich Nestor Smyrna, Georgia www.roots2buds.net Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
