Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin Nicholson Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Thanks Kirsty, Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... From: Kirsty M. Haining [mailto:khain...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:48 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Gavin, that is exactly what I’m saying. Using a gedcom export, the data shows up ONLY under the event initiator’s dataset. Keep in mind, however, that if you use Legacy to create your reports, charts, sharing via PDF files, etc. then the shared events should appear properly within the particular reports (according the report options you’ve chosen). The issue is with gedcom export.* cheers, Kirsty J *Or, technically, the issue arises anytime you’re using another software program to handle a Legacy file, be it gedcom or native FDB format. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
I just started "converting" my basic citations over to SourceWriter. Maybe I should keep them in basic if there's a problem exporting to a GEDCOM. Thanks for letting me know before I got too far with it. I haven't explored Shared Events yet so I guess I should wait on that too. Bill Boswell From: Ward Walker [mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:44 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin Nicholson <mailto:gavn...@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Thanks Kirsty, Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Bill, How do you plan to publish your research? Knowing where you plan on ending up will guide you to how you use some of the new features of Legacy. My principal publishing vehicle is to web publish with TNG. As TNG does not know anything about Legacy SW sources, I have never bothered to adopt them. That said, when Legacy exports a family file with SourceWriter sources to a Gedcom, the SW Source is exported, more or less, as a Basic source which can imported to TNG. I am not using Shared Events until either Legacy extends its Gedcom export to export Shared events as regular events OR TNG supports Shared events and Legacy Gedcom of Shared events. If you plan to publish to Legacy Web Pages or Legacy Reports, you will make different decisions as they support both SW and sources and Shared Events. The tools you use are going to be based on the what you plan to do with your research. SourceWriter sources are a reasonably safe bet, no matter what you do. As Sherry from Support has said, she has had fewer than a handful of cases in 10 years when a user needed to go to a Gedcom file to recover their data. And most of them were pre-Legacy 7. So Ward's concern is real, but the risk today is only that your sources are converted to Basic Sources. Shared Events, on the other hand, are a work in progress. I really think they add a lot and would like to use them but until there is a way to get them into TNG, I have to defer. john. At 11:43 AM 12/5/2013, William Boswell wrote: I just started "converting" my basic citations over to SourceWriter. Maybe I should keep them in basic if there's a problem exporting to a GEDCOM. Thanks for letting me know before I got too far with it. I haven't explored Shared Events yet so I guess I should wait on that too. Bill Boswell From: Ward Walker [ mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:44 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin Nicholson Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Thanks Kirsty, Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook ( http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog ( http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines:http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.aspArchived messages after Nov. 21 2009:http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.aspFollow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com).To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
I have been debating for years how to use my data. By choice I don't have a website anymore, but may export it to HTML or an equivalent web-based format to put on disc. Most likely it will be in a report or reformatted in book format. Occasionally I'd like to update Legacy 7.5's data since I still have that installed. It's useful if I mess something up and can make a quick check rather than going through backups to find what I'm looking for. From: John B. Lisle [mailto:leg...@tqsi.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:32 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Bill, How do you plan to publish your research? Knowing where you plan on ending up will guide you to how you use some of the new features of Legacy. My principal publishing vehicle is to web publish with TNG. As TNG does not know anything about Legacy SW sources, I have never bothered to adopt them. That said, when Legacy exports a family file with SourceWriter sources to a Gedcom, the SW Source is exported, more or less, as a Basic source which can imported to TNG. I am not using Shared Events until either Legacy extends its Gedcom export to export Shared events as regular events OR TNG supports Shared events and Legacy Gedcom of Shared events. If you plan to publish to Legacy Web Pages or Legacy Reports, you will make different decisions as they support both SW and sources and Shared Events. The tools you use are going to be based on the what you plan to do with your research. SourceWriter sources are a reasonably safe bet, no matter what you do. As Sherry from Support has said, she has had fewer than a handful of cases in 10 years when a user needed to go to a Gedcom file to recover their data. And most of them were pre-Legacy 7. So Ward's concern is real, but the risk today is only that your sources are converted to Basic Sources. Shared Events, on the other hand, are a work in progress. I really think they add a lot and would like to use them but until there is a way to get them into TNG, I have to defer. john. At 11:43 AM 12/5/2013, William Boswell wrote: I just started "converting" my basic citations over to SourceWriter. Maybe I should keep them in basic if there's a problem exporting to a GEDCOM. Thanks for letting me know before I got too far with it. I haven't explored Shared Events yet so I guess I should wait on that too. Bill Boswell From: Ward Walker [ mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com <mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com> ] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:44 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin Nicholson <mailto:gavn...@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Thanks Kirsty, Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook ( http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree <http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree> ) and on our blog ( http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com <http://news.legacyfamilytree.com/> ). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: ht
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Ward When the standards for Gedcom were created way back when, this 'new feature' wasn't even considered or even imagined. Don't blame the software for it, blame the standards that haven't been updated. Whatever browser you are using to read this email and view the web certainly isnt following the standards of the HTML 3.0 which was the first widely used and accepted standards for that category of electronic data. As Kristy said, the issue is wit the gedcom. Jay On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Ward Walker wrote: > I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with > SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat > these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them > into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not > believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. > > Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the > primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. > >Ward > > *From:* Gavin Nicholson > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events > > > Thanks Kirsty, > > > > Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to > export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore > but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this > as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who > doesnt use Legacy :-( > > > > Thanks for making us aware of this one. > > Gavin... > > > > *From:* Kirsty M. Haining [mailto:khain...@comcast.net] > *Sent:* Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:48 AM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events > > > > Gavin, that is *exactly* what I’m saying. Using a gedcom export, the data > shows up ONLY under the event initiator’s dataset. > > > > Keep in mind, however, that if you use *Legacy* to create your reports, > charts, sharing via PDF files, etc. then the shared events should appear > properly within the particular reports (according the report options you’ve > chosen). The issue is with *gedcom* export.* > > > > cheers, > > Kirsty > > J > > > > *Or, technically, the issue arises anytime you’re using another software > program to handle a Legacy file, be it gedcom or native FDB format. > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and > on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Jay, I think it will be a long time before we have a new interchange standard that deals with these two features. To my thinking, whenever a software vendor implements a proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal data structure), they should implement a workaround for the export of the resulting data. From day one. Why would I want to send to my distant cousins a GEDCOM for which I have to apologize due to its garbled sources or missing events? The Legacy import process already has a few workarounds to accommodate non-standard quirks in GEDCOMs generated by other products. Why not workarounds for the two export issues? They both sound achievable at a reasonable cost. I’ve already gone down the SourceWriter road, but I can easily avoid shared events until this happens. They are a nifty feature that is only half implemented. Ward From: Jay 1FamilyTree Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:23 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Ward When the standards for Gedcom were created way back when, this 'new feature' wasn't even considered or even imagined. Don't blame the software for it, blame the standards that haven't been updated. Whatever browser you are using to read this email and view the web certainly isnt following the standards of the HTML 3.0 which was the first widely used and accepted standards for that category of electronic data. As Kristy said, the issue is wit the gedcom. Jay On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Ward Walker wrote: I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin Nicholson Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Thanks Kirsty, Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... From: Kirsty M. Haining [mailto:khain...@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:48 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Gavin, that is exactly what I’m saying. Using a gedcom export, the data shows up ONLY under the event initiator’s dataset. Keep in mind, however, that if you use Legacy to create your reports, charts, sharing via PDF files, etc. then the shared events should appear properly within the particular reports (according the report options you’ve chosen). The issue is with gedcom export.* cheers, Kirsty J *Or, technically, the issue arises anytime you’re using another software program to handle a Legacy file, be it gedcom or native FDB format. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Look at the big picture. How can Legacy create a 'work-around' if whatever other software doesnt support it when its imported into their software. The same goes for a 'workaround' for some Rootsweb or Heridis feature, that Legacy would automatically support their workaround whenever their gedcom created output is to be imported into Legacy? You cannot blame Legacy for having a feature that the "industry" doesnt have an agreed upon way to manage that all software vendors will follow. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ward Walker wrote: > Jay, > > I think it will be a long time before we have a new interchange standard > that deals with these two features. To my thinking, whenever a software > vendor implements a proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal > data structure), they should implement a workaround for the export of the > resulting data. From day one. Why would I want to send to my distant > cousins a GEDCOM for which I have to apologize due to its garbled sources > or missing events? > > The Legacy import process already has a few workarounds to accommodate > non-standard quirks in GEDCOMs generated by other products. Why not > workarounds for the two export issues? They both sound achievable at a > reasonable cost. > > I’ve already gone down the SourceWriter road, but I can easily avoid > shared events until this happens. They are a nifty feature that is only > half implemented. > >Ward > > *From:* Jay 1FamilyTree <1familytree@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:23 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital > Events] > > Ward > > When the standards for Gedcom were created way back when, this 'new > feature' wasn't even considered or even imagined. > > Don't blame the software for it, blame the standards that haven't been > updated. > > > Whatever browser you are using to read this email and view the web > certainly isnt following the standards of the HTML 3.0 which was the first > widely used and accepted standards for that category of electronic data. > > > > As Kristy said, the issue is wit the gedcom. > > > Jay > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Ward Walker wrote: > >> I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with >> SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat >> these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them >> into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not >> believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. >> >> Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the >> primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. >> >>Ward >> >> *From:* Gavin Nicholson >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM >> *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >> *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events >> >> >> Thanks Kirsty, >> >> >> >> Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to >> export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore >> but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this >> as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who >> doesnt use Legacy :-( >> >> >> >> Thanks for making us aware of this one. >> >> Gavin... >> >> >> >> *From:* Kirsty M. Haining [mailto:khain...@comcast.net] >> *Sent:* Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:48 AM >> *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >> *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events >> >> >> >> Gavin, that is *exactly* what I’m saying. Using a gedcom export, the >> data shows up ONLY under the event initiator’s dataset. >> >> >> >> Keep in mind, however, that if you use *Legacy* to create your reports, >> charts, sharing via PDF files, etc. then the shared events should appear >> properly within the particular reports (according the report options you’ve >> chosen). The issue is with *gedcom* export.* >> >> >> >> cheers, >> >> Kirsty >> >> J >> >> >> >> *Or, technically, the issue arises anytime you’re using another software >> program to handle a Legacy file, be it gedcom or native FDB format. >> >> >> > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyuserg
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
FYI, RootsMagic Shared Events don't transfer via GEDCOM either. Mary On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Jay 1FamilyTree <1familytree@gmail.com>wrote: > > Look at the big picture. > > How can Legacy create a 'work-around' if whatever other software doesnt > support it when its imported into their software. > > The same goes for a 'workaround' for some Rootsweb or Heridis feature, > that Legacy would automatically support their workaround whenever their > gedcom created output is to be imported into Legacy? > > You cannot blame Legacy for having a feature that the "industry" doesnt > have an agreed upon way to manage that all software vendors will follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ward Walker wrote: > >> Jay, >> >> I think it will be a long time before we have a new interchange standard >> that deals with these two features. To my thinking, whenever a software >> vendor implements a proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal >> data structure), they should implement a workaround for the export of the >> resulting data. From day one. Why would I want to send to my distant >> cousins a GEDCOM for which I have to apologize due to its garbled sources >> or missing events? >> >> The Legacy import process already has a few workarounds to accommodate >> non-standard quirks in GEDCOMs generated by other products. Why not >> workarounds for the two export issues? They both sound achievable at a >> reasonable cost. >> >> I’ve already gone down the SourceWriter road, but I can easily avoid >> shared events until this happens. They are a nifty feature that is only >> half implemented. >> >>Ward >> >> *From:* Jay 1FamilyTree <1familytree@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:23 PM >> *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >> *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital >> Events] >> >> Ward >> >> When the standards for Gedcom were created way back when, this 'new >> feature' wasn't even considered or even imagined. >> >> Don't blame the software for it, blame the standards that haven't been >> updated. >> >> >> Whatever browser you are using to read this email and view the web >> certainly isnt following the standards of the HTML 3.0 which was the first >> widely used and accepted standards for that category of electronic data. >> >> >> >> As Kristy said, the issue is wit the gedcom. >> >> >> Jay >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Ward Walker wrote: >> >>> I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with >>> SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat >>> these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them >>> into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not >>> believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. >>> >>> Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into >>> the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. >>> >>>Ward >>> >>> *From:* Gavin Nicholson >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM >>> *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >>> *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events >>> >>> >>> Thanks Kirsty, >>> >>> >>> >>> Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple >>> to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared >>> anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, >>> with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to >>> anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for making us aware of this one. >>> >>> Gavin... >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Kirsty M. Haining [mailto:khain...@comcast.net] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:48 AM >>> *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >>> *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events >>> >>> >>> >>> Gavin, that is *exactly* what I’m saying. Using a gedcom export, the >>> data shows up ONLY under the event initiator’s dataset. >>> >>> >>> >>> Keep in mind, however, that if you use *Legacy* to create your reports, >>> charts,
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Ward, I really wish to take exception to your "half implemented" comment. In the long run, the purpose of Gedcom is to communicate information to another product. Not all products have all of the same features. Shared events - as far as I know - only exist in Legacy, Roots Magic, and a variation in The Master Genealogist. Currently, the Gedcoms for RM and Legacy can interchange Shared events perfectly. Supposedly, TMG (not TNG!) does not import or export any Gedcoms that contain anything but Gedcom 5.5.1 standard tags so shared events (They call them Witnesses) do not escape from their bubble. (I have not played with TMG in a while, and, recently, I have had TMG users dispute this assertion but without evidence.) What neither RM or Legacy do is to create a Gedcom where Shared events are converted to regular events for Gedcom export. I do not believe that anyone has yet determined how this might look, yet. --> Note: It is likely that some further enhancements need to be made to Shared events so this conversion exercise might be done as part of any enhancements. One of the proposed enhancements is to add role notes onto the person sharing the event and including in the event sentences the ability to structure the Role Notes with the Main notes. In a Gedcom export to regular notes, would you have to add to the notes that the event was shared from someone else and this person participated as a . There are currently several Gedcom options that are clearly designed to facilitate export to a 3rd party product. (eg, the 2 note conversions, the Q dates conversion.) When you do those conversion, you do not plan on re-importing those Gedcoms back into Legacy. I can tell you with confidence that these are not all easy changes. Each change is fraught with challenges with folks with existing family files that might be damaged. Almost every Gedcom export change has to be married to a Gedcom import change. When you start to add in Privacy concerns and partial gedcom export options, you have very difficult functionality to test. I personally did a lot of testing in this area and was only able to cover a fraction of all of the test cases that exist. I almost forgot to chat about SourceWriter Sources... again. These are a Legacy unique features. Each template comes with its own baggage with respect to Gedcom export. I believe that, when a new Template is created, the Gedcom export and import may sometimes be needed to be updated to support it. (I do not claim to be the SW expert among the testers so I do not look at this.) Being able to export a SW Source and then re-importing it into Legacy is really only an archival issue. The key is can Legacy Gedcom export convert a SW source into a standard "Basic" source without loss of content that can be in turn understood by most 3rd party products. john. At 03:20 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: Jay, I think it will be a long time before we have a new interchange standard that deals with these two features. To my thinking, whenever a software vendor implements a proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal data structure), they should implement a workaround for the export of the resulting data. From day one. Why would I want to send to my distant cousins a GEDCOM for which I have to apologize due to its garbled sources or missing events? The Legacy import process already has a few workarounds to accommodate non-standard quirks in GEDCOMs generated by other products. Why not workarounds for the two export issues? They both sound achievable at a reasonable cost. Iâve already gone down the SourceWriter road, but I can easily avoid shared events until this happens. They are a nifty feature that is only half implemented. Ward From: Jay 1FamilyTree Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:23 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Ward When the standards for Gedcom were created way back when, this 'new feature' wasn't even considered or even imagined. Don't blame the software for it, blame the standards that haven't been updated. Whatever browser you are using to read this email and view the web certainly isnt following the standards of the HTML 3.0 which was the first widely used and accepted standards for that category of electronic data. As Kristy said, the issue is wit the gedcom. Jay On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Ward Walker <wnkwal...@rogers.com> wrote: I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard witho
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Jay and John, I don’t expect these features/structures to be re-imported intact into the target system (whether another product or back into Legacy). What I meant by ‘workaround’ is to bend these structures into the standard GEDCOM format. Shared events become separate events. (I acknowledge that something would have to be done with ‘roles’.) SourceWriter sources already become Basic, but Legacy should re-order the information so that the basic source reads OK. I said ‘option’ because there might be opportunities for competing vendors to do a more intelligent interchange. You are saying that RM and Legacy can interchange shared events via GEDCOM, so there must be a special way to encode the non-standard structures. My wish is for an option that suits an unknown target system as best possible using only standard GEDCOM. I’ve never run into a cousin that uses RM. BTW, I sympathize with the testing challenges. I was a software tester and test manager. Perhaps it is time for Millennia to invest in some automated test cases for regression testing. But my complaint is with the design of new features. If I can’t send my digital data to a fellow researcher, even in a simplified state, then I better not use that feature. It is not fully implemented. Ward From: John B. Lisle Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 4:32 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Ward, I really wish to take exception to your "half implemented" comment. In the long run, the purpose of Gedcom is to communicate information to another product. Not all products have all of the same features. Shared events - as far as I know - only exist in Legacy, Roots Magic, and a variation in The Master Genealogist. Currently, the Gedcoms for RM and Legacy can interchange Shared events perfectly. Supposedly, TMG (not TNG!) does not import or export any Gedcoms that contain anything but Gedcom 5.5.1 standard tags so shared events (They call them Witnesses) do not escape from their bubble. (I have not played with TMG in a while, and, recently, I have had TMG users dispute this assertion but without evidence.) What neither RM or Legacy do is to create a Gedcom where Shared events are converted to regular events for Gedcom export. I do not believe that anyone has yet determined how this might look, yet. --> Note: It is likely that some further enhancements need to be made to Shared events so this conversion exercise might be done as part of any enhancements. One of the proposed enhancements is to add role notes onto the person sharing the event and including in the event sentences the ability to structure the Role Notes with the Main notes. In a Gedcom export to regular notes, would you have to add to the notes that the event was shared from someone else and this person participated as a . There are currently several Gedcom options that are clearly designed to facilitate export to a 3rd party product. (eg, the 2 note conversions, the Q dates conversion.) When you do those conversion, you do not plan on re-importing those Gedcoms back into Legacy. I can tell you with confidence that these are not all easy changes. Each change is fraught with challenges with folks with existing family files that might be damaged. Almost every Gedcom export change has to be married to a Gedcom import change. When you start to add in Privacy concerns and partial gedcom export options, you have very difficult functionality to test. I personally did a lot of testing in this area and was only able to cover a fraction of all of the test cases that exist. I almost forgot to chat about SourceWriter Sources... again. These are a Legacy unique features. Each template comes with its own baggage with respect to Gedcom export. I believe that, when a new Template is created, the Gedcom export and import may sometimes be needed to be updated to support it. (I do not claim to be the SW expert among the testers so I do not look at this.) Being able to export a SW Source and then re-importing it into Legacy is really only an archival issue. The key is can Legacy Gedcom export convert a SW source into a standard "Basic" source without loss of content that can be in turn understood by most 3rd party products. john. At 03:20 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: Jay, I think it will be a long time before we have a new interchange standard that deals with these two features. To my thinking, whenever a software vendor implements a proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal data structure), they should implement a workaround for the export of the resulting data. From day one. Why would I want to send to my distant cousins a GEDCOM for which I have to apologize due to its garbled sources or missing events? The Legacy import process already has a few workarounds to accommodate non-standard quirks in GEDCOMs generated by
RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
RM can very quickly import a Legacy 8 file, including shared events … C.G. Ouimet Kingston ON From: Ward Walker [mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] Sent: December 05, 2013 05:19 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Jay and John, I don’t expect these features/structures to be re-imported intact into the target system (whether another product or back into Legacy). What I meant by ‘workaround’ is to bend these structures into the standard GEDCOM format. Shared events become separate events. (I acknowledge that something would have to be done with ‘roles’.) SourceWriter sources already become Basic, but Legacy should re-order the information so that the basic source reads OK. I said ‘option’ because there might be opportunities for competing vendors to do a more intelligent interchange. You are saying that RM and Legacy can interchange shared events via GEDCOM, so there must be a special way to encode the non-standard structures. My wish is for an option that suits an unknown target system as best possible using only standard GEDCOM. I’ve never run into a cousin that uses RM. BTW, I sympathize with the testing challenges. I was a software tester and test manager. Perhaps it is time for Millennia to invest in some automated test cases for regression testing. But my complaint is with the design of new features. If I can’t send my digital data to a fellow researcher, even in a simplified state, then I better not use that feature. It is not fully implemented. Ward From: John B. Lisle <mailto:leg...@tqsi.com> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 4:32 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Ward, I really wish to take exception to your "half implemented" comment. In the long run, the purpose of Gedcom is to communicate information to another product. Not all products have all of the same features. Shared events - as far as I know - only exist in Legacy, Roots Magic, and a variation in The Master Genealogist. Currently, the Gedcoms for RM and Legacy can interchange Shared events perfectly. Supposedly, TMG (not TNG!) does not import or export any Gedcoms that contain anything but Gedcom 5.5.1 standard tags so shared events (They call them Witnesses) do not escape from their bubble. (I have not played with TMG in a while, and, recently, I have had TMG users dispute this assertion but without evidence.) What neither RM or Legacy do is to create a Gedcom where Shared events are converted to regular events for Gedcom export. I do not believe that anyone has yet determined how this might look, yet. --> Note: It is likely that some further enhancements need to be made to Shared events so this conversion exercise might be done as part of any enhancements. One of the proposed enhancements is to add role notes onto the person sharing the event and including in the event sentences the ability to structure the Role Notes with the Main notes. In a Gedcom export to regular notes, would you have to add to the notes that the event was shared from someone else and this person participated as a . There are currently several Gedcom options that are clearly designed to facilitate export to a 3rd party product. (eg, the 2 note conversions, the Q dates conversion.) When you do those conversion, you do not plan on re-importing those Gedcoms back into Legacy. I can tell you with confidence that these are not all easy changes. Each change is fraught with challenges with folks with existing family files that might be damaged. Almost every Gedcom export change has to be married to a Gedcom import change. When you start to add in Privacy concerns and partial gedcom export options, you have very difficult functionality to test. I personally did a lot of testing in this area and was only able to cover a fraction of all of the test cases that exist. I almost forgot to chat about SourceWriter Sources... again. These are a Legacy unique features. Each template comes with its own baggage with respect to Gedcom export. I believe that, when a new Template is created, the Gedcom export and import may sometimes be needed to be updated to support it. (I do not claim to be the SW expert among the testers so I do not look at this.) Being able to export a SW Source and then re-importing it into Legacy is really only an archival issue. The key is can Legacy Gedcom export convert a SW source into a standard "Basic" source without loss of content that can be in turn understood by most 3rd party products. john. At 03:20 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: Jay, I think it will be a long time before we have a new interchange standard that deals with these two features. To my thinking, whenever a software vendor implements a proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal data struct
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Ward, Thanks for your note. Please see below... john. At 05:18 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: Jay and John, I donât expect these features/structures to be re-imported intact into the target system (whether another product or back into Legacy). I do expect, at some time in the future, that Gedcom will have an option to export SW Sources in a form that they can be re-imported into Legacy perfectly. Not being the programmer, I do not know what the issues are. What I meant by âworkaroundâ is to bend these structures into the standard GEDCOM format. Shared events become separate events. (I acknowledge that something would have to be done with ârolesâ.) Agree. At this point, let's walk before we run. We already export so that RM can import them perfectly, and we can import RM's perfectly. SourceWriter sources already become Basic, but Legacy should re-order the information so that the basic source reads OK. As far as I know, SW Sources exported into Gedcom as "Basic" are able to import into other programs. I know of no specific problems although I am sure some exist, either based on specific templates or types of included data. --> One problem that has been reported on this list is that note fields on export in sources are not getting the formatting codes and space code conversions when they are requested in the export. If you know of specific issues, not just anecdotal reports, then you need to get them to support so that they can be reviewed and included in the bug list. I said âoptionâ because there might be opportunities for competing vendors to do a more intelligent interchange. You are saying that RM and Legacy can interchange shared events via GEDCOM, so there must be a special way to encode the non-standard structures. The two vendors seem to have "agreed" to adopt the same syntax. This same syntax has been presented to TNG (Web Publisher) for his future implementation of Shared Events. (TNG Users... if you want this in TNG soon, you really have to ask TNG to include it.) My wish is for an option that suits an unknown target system as best possible using only standard GEDCOM. Iâve never run into a cousin that uses RM. As I said before, I want this too so I can use Shared Events. BUT... I want to let the implementation settle down as more should be coming. hopefully soon. ;-) BTW, I sympathize with the testing challenges. I was a software tester and test manager. You might want to consider offering yourself up for the Test team. ;-) Perhaps it is time for Millennia to invest in some automated test cases for regression testing. Above my pay grade... But possibly a thought moving forward. I introduced automatic testing to many companies before I retired. I am not current with what is in the market today, and, if it would fit with Millennia's development process. But my complaint is with the design of new features. If I canât send my digital data to a fellow researcher, even in a simplified state, then I better not use that feature. It is not fully implemented. In my opinion, Legacy has the best balance of advanced customizable features and "non-proprietary" data of any of the major vendors. Personally, I try to get my fellow researchers to convert to Legacy so I can send them a Legacy backup file. And, if they do not want all of the data, ready to go, they get a Gedcom. In 2013, however, collaboration is not really done best by sharing files. It is done with web/cloud based solutions like TNG, Ancestry Files, Family Search Tree, etc. john. Ward From: John B. Lisle Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 4:32 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Ward, I really wish to take exception to your "half implemented" comment. In the long run, the purpose of Gedcom is to communicate information to another product. Not all products have all of the same features. Shared events - as far as I know - only exist in Legacy, Roots Magic, and a variation in The Master Genealogist. Currently, the Gedcoms for RM and Legacy can interchange Shared events perfectly. Supposedly, TMG (not TNG!) does not import or export any Gedcoms that contain anything but Gedcom 5.5.1 standard tags so shared events (They call them Witnesses) do not escape from their bubble. (I have not played with TMG in a while, and, recently, I have had TMG users dispute this assertion but without evidence.) What neither RM or Legacy do is to create a Gedcom where Shared events are converted to regular events for Gedcom export. I do not believe that anyone has yet determined how this might look, yet. --> Note: It is likely that some further enhancements need to be made to Shared events so this conversion exercise might be done as part of any enhancements. One of the proposed enhancements is to add role notes onto the person sharing the event and including in the event sentence
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
John, New GEDCOM: From previous LUG discussions it sounds like it will be years before a new interchange standard replaces the current GEDCOM standard. Legacy-RM Interchange: RM is not of any relevance to me. Am I alone in this regard? Specific SW Problems: Gavin has illustrated a typical example of the SourceWriter GEDCOM problem. It has been reported to Legacy Support long ago. Try this: export a file and import it back into a test Legacy file. Create a report and look at your citations. All those that used a template of any complexity at all will have the words and phrases out of order (at best). This is not anecdotal. There is a clear cause. In attempting to preserve the master/detail relationship within the GEDCOM, the fields get shuffled into a different order. My idea of a workaround is to flatten each citation out into a mostly Detail citation, with the words formatted as in a normal Legacy report. Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch interactively. Painful. Am I making my case, yet, that GEDCOM export is a vital component of any new feature design? Ward From: John B. Lisle Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 6:55 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Ward, Thanks for your note. Please see below... john. At 05:18 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: Jay and John, I donât expect these features/structures to be re-imported intact into the target system (whether another product or back into Legacy). I do expect, at some time in the future, that Gedcom will have an option to export SW Sources in a form that they can be re-imported into Legacy perfectly. Not being the programmer, I do not know what the issues are. What I meant by âworkaroundâ is to bend these structures into the standard GEDCOM format. Shared events become separate events. (I acknowledge that something would have to be done with ârolesâ.) Agree. At this point, let's walk before we run. We already export so that RM can import them perfectly, and we can import RM's perfectly. SourceWriter sources already become Basic, but Legacy should re-order the information so that the basic source reads OK. As far as I know, SW Sources exported into Gedcom as "Basic" are able to import into other programs. I know of no specific problems although I am sure some exist, either based on specific templates or types of included data. --> One problem that has been reported on this list is that note fields on export in sources are not getting the formatting codes and space code conversions when they are requested in the export. If you know of specific issues, not just anecdotal reports, then you need to get them to support so that they can be reviewed and included in the bug list. I said âoptionâ because there might be opportunities for competing vendors to do a more intelligent interchange. You are saying that RM and Legacy can interchange shared events via GEDCOM, so there must be a special way to encode the non-standard structures. The two vendors seem to have "agreed" to adopt the same syntax. This same syntax has been presented to TNG (Web Publisher) for his future implementation of Shared Events. (TNG Users... if you want this in TNG soon, you really have to ask TNG to include it.) My wish is for an option that suits an unknown target system as best possible using only standard GEDCOM. Iâve never run into a cousin that uses RM. As I said before, I want this too so I can use Shared Events. BUT... I want to let the implementation settle down as more should be coming. hopefully soon. ;-) BTW, I sympathize with the testing challenges. I was a software tester and test manager. You might want to consider offering yourself up for the Test team. ;-) Perhaps it is time for Millennia to invest in some automated test cases for regression testing. Above my pay grade... But possibly a thought moving forward. I introduced automatic testing to many companies before I retired. I am not current with what is in the market today, and, if it would fit with Millennia's development process. But my complaint is with the design of new features. If I canât send my digital data to a fellow researcher, even in a simplified state, then I better not use that fea
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Ward, Please see below... john. At 07:45 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: John, New GEDCOM: From previous LUG discussions it sounds like it will be years before a new interchange standard replaces the current GEDCOM standard. Personally, I think it will never happen. There is too much "inventory" of genealogy that is embedded in Gedcom files and too much software that will need to be updated in too many countries. The folks trying to decide on a new standard are usually too invested in their own data models. Further, you have many vendors developing applications that are reading other vendors databases directly. TMG's GenBridge technology is just the well known of these. Many of the vendors who have applications working with Legacy, read the Legacy file directly. (I do not happen to like this as I would prefer that Legacy had an API, but that is another subject.) Legacy-RM Interchange: RM is not of any relevance to me. Am I alone in this regard? No, but many Legacy users use both products. AND having a good interchange sells more Legacy as RM users can decide to move up to Legacy. Specific SW Problems: Gavin has illustrated a typical example of the SourceWriter GEDCOM problem. It has been reported to Legacy Support long ago. Try this: export a file and import it back into a test Legacy file. Create a report and look at your citations. All those that used a template of any complexity at all will have the words and phrases out of order (at best). This is not anecdotal. There is a clear cause. In attempting to preserve the master/detail relationship within the GEDCOM, the fields get shuffled into a different order. My idea of a workaround is to flatten each citation out into a mostly Detail citation, with the words formatted as in a normal Legacy report. As I said before, I am not a SW expert. I will let someone knowledgeable address this. Sorry. Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a significant portion of my tree, seeing it online wonât help them. I have to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch interactively. Painful. I think your vision is too pessimistic. I know from my own work over 10+ years with Legacy that I can exchange data with minimal concern which I do on an almost daily basis. But this is a much larger subject. Let's tackle it later. Am I making my case, yet, that GEDCOM export is a vital component of any new feature design? It is a vital component. As is Gedcom Import! of every release. The most important concept for you to take away is that for the programmers to make it better, they have to know what folks find as it shortcomings. I suspect in the last month before Legacy 8's release, the programmers spent as much time improving Gedcom import/export as anything else. john. Ward From: John B. Lisle Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 6:55 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Ward, Thanks for your note. Please see below... john. At 05:18 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: Jay and John, I donâÂÂt expect these features/structures to be re-imported intact into the target system (whether another product or back into Legacy). I do expect, at some time in the future, that Gedcom will have an option to export SW Sources in a form that they can be re-imported into Legacy perfectly. Not being the programmer, I do not know what the issues are. What I meant by âÂÂworkaroundâ is to bend these structures into the standard GEDCOM format. Shared events become separate events. (I acknowledge that something would have to be done with âÂÂrolesâÂÂ.) Agree. At this point, let's walk before we run. We already export so that RM can import them perfectly, and we can import RM's perfectly. SourceWriter sources already become Basic, but Legacy should re-order the information so that the basic source reads OK. As far as I know, SW Sources exported into Gedcom as "Basic" are able to import into other programs. I know of no specific problems although I am sure some exist, either based on specific templates or types of included data. --> One problem that has been reported on this list is that note fields on export in sources are not getting the formatting codes and space code conversions when they are requested in the export. If you know of specific issues, not just anecdotal reports, then you need to get them to support so that they can be reviewed and included in the bu
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
I will add one comment on this subject and then move on In one of the previous messages was stated Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch interactively. Painful. The reason you have to send your new cousin / researcher a file, is because whatever online software you exported your Gedcom to did NOT properly import or use all of the data that was in a Legacy created gedcom. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, John B. Lisle wrote: > Ward, > > Please see below... > > john. > > At 07:45 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: > > John, > > New GEDCOM: From previous LUG discussions it sounds like it will be years > before a new interchange standard replaces the current GEDCOM standard. > > > Personally, I think it will never happen. There is too much "inventory" of > genealogy that is embedded in Gedcom files and too much software that will > need to be updated in too many countries. > > The folks trying to decide on a new standard are usually too invested in > their own data models. > > Further, you have many vendors developing applications that are reading > other vendors databases directly. TMG's GenBridge technology is just the > well known of these. Many of the vendors who have applications working with > Legacy, read the Legacy file directly. (I do not happen to like this as I > would prefer that Legacy had an API, but that is another subject.) > > > Legacy-RM Interchange: RM is not of any relevance to me. Am I alone in > this regard? > > > > No, but many Legacy users use both products. AND having a good interchange > sells more Legacy as RM users can decide to move up to Legacy. > > > Specific SW Problems: Gavin has illustrated a typical example of the > SourceWriter GEDCOM problem. It has been reported to Legacy Support long > ago. Try this: export a file and import it back into a test Legacy file. > Create a report and look at your citations. All those that used a template > of any complexity at all will have the words and phrases out of order (at > best). This is not anecdotal. There is a clear cause. In attempting to > preserve the master/detail relationship within the GEDCOM, the fields get > shuffled into a different order. My idea of a workaround is to flatten each > citation out into a mostly Detail citation, with the words formatted as in > a normal Legacy report. > > > As I said before, I am not a SW expert. > > I will let someone knowledgeable address this. > > Sorry. > > > Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of > Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM > interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family > Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a > significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have > to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software > that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new > product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., > Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch > interactively. Painful. > > > I think your vision is too pessimistic. I know from my own work over 10+ > years with Legacy that I can exchange data with minimal concern which I do > on an almost daily basis. > > But this is a much larger subject. Let's tackle it later. > > > Am I making my case, yet, that GEDCOM export is a vital component of any > new feature design? > > > It is a vital component. As is Gedcom Import! of every release. The most > important concept for you to take away is that for the programmers to make > it better, they have to know what folks find as it shortcomings. > > I suspect in the last month before Legacy 8's release, the programmers > spent as much time improving Gedcom import/export as anything else. > > john. > > >Ward > > *From:* John B. Lisle > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 6:55 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital > Events] > > Ward, > > Thanks for yo
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Jay, I have reread this several times and cannot understand what point you are making. 1. To clarify, I have not exported any data to any online software. My point was simply that it makes no difference whether my newly-found cousin maintains their tree online or on their computer. If they want to add my branch of the family, I need to create a GEDCOM export. 2. I hope it is clear to all that when Legacy exports SW sources to GEDCOM, it irreversibly changes the data (in the process of creating GEDCOM-compatible, ‘basic’ style sources). There is nothing that the target software can do about it. The desired formatting of the citation cannot be recreated, even if re-imported to Legacy. 3. How could this be resolved? It sounds like there are two approaches: (a) bury the intelligent formatting data in custom GEDCOM codes that certain target systems are then programmed to unbury and use; or (b) make do with a compromise workaround that is transparent to the target system and thus works for all target systems. The latter is what I had been advocating, for SW. The Subject line is about Shared Events. Today’s e-mails raise questions about whether there is even a problem. Leonard’s observation suggests that perhaps approach (b), above, has already been implemented for this feature. (That would be that, while the structure of shared events is lost, at least the events are copied to all applicable individuals.) And yesterday’s comments suggest that approach (a) was also done, for RM. Ward From: Jay 1FamilyTree Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:00 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] I will add one comment on this subject and then move on In one of the previous messages was stated Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch interactively. Painful. The reason you have to send your new cousin / researcher a file, is because whatever online software you exported your Gedcom to did NOT properly import or use all of the data that was in a Legacy created gedcom. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Actuallly Roots Magic 6306 Imports shared events directly from the Legacy 8 file (not GEDCOM) and sees/uses them as shared events … C.G. Ouimet Kingston ON From: Ward Walker [mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] Sent: December 06, 2013 02:31 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Jay, I have reread this several times and cannot understand what point you are making. 1. To clarify, I have not exported any data to any online software. My point was simply that it makes no difference whether my newly-found cousin maintains their tree online or on their computer. If they want to add my branch of the family, I need to create a GEDCOM export. 2. I hope it is clear to all that when Legacy exports SW sources to GEDCOM, it irreversibly changes the data (in the process of creating GEDCOM-compatible, ‘basic’ style sources). There is nothing that the target software can do about it. The desired formatting of the citation cannot be recreated, even if re-imported to Legacy. 3. How could this be resolved? It sounds like there are two approaches: (a) bury the intelligent formatting data in custom GEDCOM codes that certain target systems are then programmed to unbury and use; or (b) make do with a compromise workaround that is transparent to the target system and thus works for all target systems. The latter is what I had been advocating, for SW. The Subject line is about Shared Events. Today’s e-mails raise questions about whether there is even a problem. Leonard’s observation suggests that perhaps approach (b), above, has already been implemented for this feature. (That would be that, while the structure of shared events is lost, at least the events are copied to all applicable individuals.) And yesterday’s comments suggest that approach (a) was also done, for RM. Ward From: Jay 1FamilyTree <mailto:1familytree@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:00 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] I will add one comment on this subject and then move on In one of the previous messages was stated Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch interactively. Painful. The reason you have to send your new cousin / researcher a file, is because whatever online software you exported your Gedcom to did NOT properly import or use all of the data that was in a Legacy created gedcom. Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
When I've had to manually massage a GED to make it import into one of my programs, I've found that when I change every off-beat (read: non-vanilla) tag to NOTE and dump everthing into NOTES, it works better than most other things. If I can do it by hand using search/replace, it ought to be a trivial programming task. I do agree, though, that if everyone used MY program of preference I wouldn't have to do this, but some folks /do/ think they know better'n me. ;) Cheryl Jay 1FamilyTree wrote: > > Look at the big picture. > > How can Legacy create a 'work-around' if whatever other > software doesnt support it when its imported into their > software. > > The same goes for a 'workaround' for some Rootsweb or > Heridis feature, that Legacy would automatically support > their workaround whenever their gedcom created output is to > be imported into Legacy? > > You cannot blame Legacy for having a feature that the > "industry" doesnt have an agreed upon way to manage that all > software vendors will follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ward Walker > mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com>> wrote: > > Jay, > I think it will be a long time before we have a new > interchange standard that deals with these two features. > To my thinking, whenever a software vendor implements a > proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal > data structure), they should implement a workaround for > the export of the resulting data. From day one. Why > would I want to send to my distant cousins a GEDCOM for > which I have to apologize due to its garbled sources or > missing events? > The Legacy import process already has a few workarounds > to accommodate non-standard quirks in GEDCOMs generated > by other products. Why not workarounds for the two > export issues? They both sound achievable at a > reasonable cost. > I’ve already gone down the SourceWriter road, but I can > easily avoid shared events until this happens. They are > a nifty feature that is only half implemented. > Ward > *From:* Jay 1FamilyTree <mailto:1familytree....@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:23 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > <mailto:LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com> > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: > [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] > Ward > When the standards for Gedcom were created way back > when, this 'new feature' wasn't even considered or even > imagined. > Don't blame the software for it, blame the standards > that haven't been updated. > Whatever browser you are using to read this email and > view the web certainly isnt following the standards of > the HTML 3.0 which was the first widely used and > accepted standards for that category of electronic data. > As Kristy said, the issue is wit the gedcom. > Jay > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Ward Walker > mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com>> wrote: > > I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the > problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have > long advocated that Legacy reformat these into > readable detail citations during the process of > converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM > export. It seems that Millennia does not believe > that a usable GEDCOM export is important. > Every proprietary new feature should have an option > to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard > without loss of data. > Ward > *From:* Gavin Nicholson <mailto:gavn...@hotmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > <mailto:LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com> > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events > > Thanks Kirsty, > > > > Well I will be putting a change proposal in because > it would be simple to export a copy of the events to > each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that > is far preferable to not existing at all. > Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared > events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt > use Legacy :-( > > > > Thanks for making us aware of this one. > > Gavin... > > > > *From:*Kirsty M. Haining > [mailto:khain...@comcast.net &
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Ward, You are not alone in the desire to want Legacy to export *your* data cleanly. You arguments are valid. On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Ward Walker wrote: > Jay, I have reread this several times and cannot understand what point > you are making. > > 1. To clarify, I have not exported any data to any online software. My > point was simply that it makes no difference whether my newly-found cousin > maintains their tree online or on their computer. If they want to add my > branch of the family, I need to create a GEDCOM export. > > 2. I hope it is clear to all that when Legacy exports SW sources to > GEDCOM, it irreversibly changes the data (in the process of creating > GEDCOM-compatible, ‘basic’ style sources). There is nothing that the target > software can do about it. The desired formatting of the citation cannot be > recreated, even if re-imported to Legacy. > > 3. How could this be resolved? It sounds like there are two approaches: > (a) bury the intelligent formatting data in custom GEDCOM codes that > certain target systems are then programmed to unbury and use; or (b) make > do with a compromise workaround that is transparent to the target system > and thus works for all target systems. The latter is what I had been > advocating, for SW. > > The Subject line is about Shared Events. Today’s e-mails raise questions > about whether there is even a problem. Leonard’s observation suggests that > perhaps approach (b), above, has already been implemented for this feature. > (That would be that, while the structure of shared events is lost, at least > the events are copied to all applicable individuals.) And yesterday’s > comments suggest that approach (a) was also done, for RM. > >Ward > > *From:* Jay 1FamilyTree <1familytree@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:00 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital > Events] > > I will add one comment on this subject and then move on > > In one of the previous messages was stated > > > Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of > Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM > interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family > Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a > significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have > to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software > that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new > product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., > Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch > interactively. Painful. > > > The reason you have to send your new cousin / researcher a file, is > because whatever online software you exported your Gedcom to > did NOT properly import or use all of the data that was in a Legacy > created gedcom. > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and > on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > -- James Cook GED Utils, Ancestry Utils http://loosestacks.blogspot.com/ Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Ward, You are describing two different scenarios here Your original comment implied that if a cousin saw your data online they could download it as not all of it would be there. "Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them." If the online software had imported all of your gedcom data and knew how to handle all the various components so that it duplicated what you had on your desktop, then your cousin could see and and possibly download all the data without you having to send them a file. Your clarification today refers to your cousin wanting your data, and implies a gedcom would not contain all of your data EXACTLY as you have it. 1. To clarify, I have not exported any data to any online software. My point was simply that it makes no difference whether my newly-found cousin maintains their tree online or on their computer. If they want to add my branch of the family, I need to create a GEDCOM export. But at least you seem to be getting closer to understanding what might need to be done to resolve an issue like this. you said " (a) bury the intelligent formatting data in custom GEDCOM codes that certain target systems are then programmed to unbury and use;" The last part of your statement is the catch certain target systems are then programmed... So Legacy has just informed the world on how the data for shared events is exported, (with the release of V8) we now have to wait for all the various "certain systems" to digest that and and their programmers to code and then release an update to their users before it possible... Or looking at it another way... Rootsmagic software update last November 2012 allows a gedcom export to include a shared event and Legacy just programmed their software to be able to handle the data so that the same type event is shared within the Legacy software. How long will it take for all the other systems or software to do the same? Jay On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Ward Walker wrote: > Jay, I have reread this several times and cannot understand what point > you are making. > > 1. To clarify, I have not exported any data to any online software. My > point was simply that it makes no difference whether my newly-found cousin > maintains their tree online or on their computer. If they want to add my > branch of the family, I need to create a GEDCOM export. > > 2. I hope it is clear to all that when Legacy exports SW sources to > GEDCOM, it irreversibly changes the data (in the process of creating > GEDCOM-compatible, ‘basic’ style sources). There is nothing that the target > software can do about it. The desired formatting of the citation cannot be > recreated, even if re-imported to Legacy. > > 3. How could this be resolved? It sounds like there are two approaches: > (a) bury the intelligent formatting data in custom GEDCOM codes that > certain target systems are then programmed to unbury and use; or (b) make > do with a compromise workaround that is transparent to the target system > and thus works for all target systems. The latter is what I had been > advocating, for SW. > > The Subject line is about Shared Events. Today’s e-mails raise questions > about whether there is even a problem. Leonard’s observation suggests that > perhaps approach (b), above, has already been implemented for this feature. > (That would be that, while the structure of shared events is lost, at least > the events are copied to all applicable individuals.) And yesterday’s > comments suggest that approach (a) was also done, for RM. > >Ward > > *From:* Jay 1FamilyTree <1familytree....@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:00 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital > Events] > > I will add one comment on this subject and then move on > > In one of the previous messages was stated > > > Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of > Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM > interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family > Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a > significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have > to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software > that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new > product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., > Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch > interactively. Painful. > > > The reason you have to send your new cousin / researcher a file, is > because whatever online software you exported your
Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Ward, For clarification. To transfer data to another Legacy Program I.e. on a different page, there is no need for s GEDCOM. Sending the backup or .fdb file will do fine. My brother in law and myself have been swapping .fdb files for years. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk/ Ward Walker wrote: >Jay, I have reread this several times and cannot understand what point you are >making. > >1. To clarify, I have not exported any data to any online software. My point >was simply that it makes no difference whether my newly-found cousin maintains >their tree online or on their computer. If they want to add my branch of the >family, I need to create a GEDCOM export. > >2. I hope it is clear to all that when Legacy exports SW sources to GEDCOM, >it irreversibly changes the data (in the process of creating >GEDCOM-compatible, ‘basic’ style sources). There is nothing that the target >software can do about it. The desired formatting of the citation cannot be >recreated, even if re-imported to Legacy. > >3. How could this be resolved? It sounds like there are two approaches: (a) >bury the intelligent formatting data in custom GEDCOM codes that certain >target systems are then programmed to unbury and use; or (b) make do with a >compromise workaround that is transparent to the target system and thus works >for all target systems. The latter is what I had been advocating, for SW. > >The Subject line is about Shared Events. Today’s e-mails raise questions about >whether there is even a problem. Leonard’s observation suggests that perhaps >approach (b), above, has already been implemented for this feature. (That >would be that, while the structure of shared events is lost, at least the >events are copied to all applicable individuals.) And yesterday’s comments >suggest that approach (a) was also done, for RM. > > Ward > >From: Jay 1FamilyTree >Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 11:00 PM >To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com >Subject: Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] > >I will add one comment on this subject and then move on > >In one of the previous messages was stated > > Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of > Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM interchange, > aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family Tree. Anyway, if > a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a significant portion of my > tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have to send them a file. Usually > they barely know how to operate the software that they have (often FTM) and > are not open to starting over with a new product just to accommodate me. If > their tree is only online (e.g., Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me > access to add my branch interactively. Painful. > > > >The reason you have to send your new cousin / researcher a file, is because >whatever online software you exported your Gedcom to >did NOT properly import or use all of the data that was in a Legacy created >gedcom. > > >Legacy User Group guidelines: >http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp >Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: >http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ >Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: >http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ >Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp >Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on >our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). >To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
John I happened to be one person who had to resolve database nulls when linked to FamilySearch by using the gedcom export / import. This was on version 7.5. I still keep a reminder to the effect "When creating an email source using Sourcewriter and subsequently exporting the file as a GEDCOM, the Title of the source gets dropped for the words which come after the expression "[(E-ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE),]". The Title gets referred to as "ABBR" in the GEDCOM and is not imported as the source Title into any other software. What's even worse, is that the ABBR field gets contacenated with the Comments field by some software, effectively making the source unintelligible." To my knowledge, this still applies - maybe Sherry has an update on this? Alan Pereira From: John B. Lisle [mailto:leg...@tqsi.com] Sent: 05 December 2013 17:32 To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Bill, How do you plan to publish your research? Knowing where you plan on ending up will guide you to how you use some of the new features of Legacy. My principal publishing vehicle is to web publish with TNG. As TNG does not know anything about Legacy SW sources, I have never bothered to adopt them. That said, when Legacy exports a family file with SourceWriter sources to a Gedcom, the SW Source is exported, more or less, as a Basic source which can imported to TNG. I am not using Shared Events until either Legacy extends its Gedcom export to export Shared events as regular events OR TNG supports Shared events and Legacy Gedcom of Shared events. If you plan to publish to Legacy Web Pages or Legacy Reports, you will make different decisions as they support both SW and sources and Shared Events. The tools you use are going to be based on the what you plan to do with your research. SourceWriter sources are a reasonably safe bet, no matter what you do. As Sherry from Support has said, she has had fewer than a handful of cases in 10 years when a user needed to go to a Gedcom file to recover their data. And most of them were pre-Legacy 7. So Ward's concern is real, but the risk today is only that your sources are converted to Basic Sources. Shared Events, on the other hand, are a work in progress. I really think they add a lot and would like to use them but until there is a way to get them into TNG, I have to defer. john. At 11:43 AM 12/5/2013, William Boswell wrote: I just started "converting" my basic citations over to SourceWriter. Maybe I should keep them in basic if there's a problem exporting to a GEDCOM. Thanks for letting me know before I got too far with it. I haven't explored Shared Events yet so I guess I should wait on that too. Bill Boswell From: Ward Walker [ mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com <mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com> ] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:44 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin Nicholson <mailto:gavn...@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Thanks Kirsty, Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
There have been several LUG discussions about this. When Legacy formats source citation output from a template-based source, in many cases (i.e., templates) it intermixes field values from the master source and the detail source to achieve a nicely worded citation. But upon export, it simply appends all the master fields together, followed by all the detail fields. The result, upon import, can be garbled data and misplaced punctuation or keywords. Some templates are worse than others. (I can’t tell if there is an additional, compounding bug in your example of an e-mail source.) Ward From: Alan Pereira Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 1:03 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] John I happened to be one person who had to resolve database nulls when linked to FamilySearch by using the gedcom export / import. This was on version 7.5. I still keep a reminder to the effect "When creating an email source using Sourcewriter and subsequently exporting the file as a GEDCOM, the Title of the source gets dropped for the words which come after the expression "[(E-ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE),]". The Title gets referred to as "ABBR" in the GEDCOM and is not imported as the source Title into any other software. What's even worse, is that the ABBR field gets contacenated with the Comments field by some software, effectively making the source unintelligible." To my knowledge, this still applies - maybe Sherry has an update on this? Alan Pereira From: John B. Lisle [mailto:leg...@tqsi.com] Sent: 05 December 2013 17:32 To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Bill, How do you plan to publish your research? Knowing where you plan on ending up will guide you to how you use some of the new features of Legacy. My principal publishing vehicle is to web publish with TNG. As TNG does not know anything about Legacy SW sources, I have never bothered to adopt them. That said, when Legacy exports a family file with SourceWriter sources to a Gedcom, the SW Source is exported, more or less, as a Basic source which can imported to TNG. I am not using Shared Events until either Legacy extends its Gedcom export to export Shared events as regular events OR TNG supports Shared events and Legacy Gedcom of Shared events. If you plan to publish to Legacy Web Pages or Legacy Reports, you will make different decisions as they support both SW and sources and Shared Events. The tools you use are going to be based on the what you plan to do with your research. SourceWriter sources are a reasonably safe bet, no matter what you do. As Sherry from Support has said, she has had fewer than a handful of cases in 10 years when a user needed to go to a Gedcom file to recover their data. And most of them were pre-Legacy 7. So Ward's concern is real, but the risk today is only that your sources are converted to Basic Sources. Shared Events, on the other hand, are a work in progress. I really think they add a lot and would like to use them but until there is a way to get them into TNG, I have to defer. john. At 11:43 AM 12/5/2013, William Boswell wrote: I just started "converting" my basic citations over to SourceWriter. Maybe I should keep them in basic if there's a problem exporting to a GEDCOM. Thanks for letting me know before I got too far with it. I haven't explored Shared Events yet so I guess I should wait on that too. Bill Boswell From: Ward Walker [mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:44 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin Nicholson Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Thanks Kirsty, Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov
Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Alan, Thank you for this sharing. I am not in Support. Although I am a tester for Legacy, I am first and foremost a user, like yourself. I do not know the particulars of most of the support issues unless they are elevated to the Test group for testing - or for testing a fix. I have a personal mission to assure a Legacy Gedcom can recreate the Family family from whence it came, as much as possible. I am under the impression that the original issue with SourceWriter sources and Gedcoms is based on the complexity of what the Gedcom structure would be to export them completely for the very limited expected use. As I said previously, the vast majority of the users will want a source that can be imported into another program. Getting SW to Gedcom export correctly is on my personal list of Gedcom updates that I want to see happen. john. At 01:03 PM 12/5/2013, Alan Pereira wrote: John I happened to be one person who had to resolve database nulls when linked to FamilySearch by using the gedcom export / import. This was on version 7.5. I still keep a reminder to the effect "When creating an email source using Sourcewriter and subsequently exporting the file as a GEDCOM, the Title of the source gets dropped for the words which come after the _expression_ "[(E-ADDRESS FOR PRIVATE USE),]". The Title gets referred to as "ABBR" in the GEDCOM and is not imported as the source Title into any other software. What's even worse, is that the ABBR field gets contacenated with the Comments field by some software, effectively making the source unintelligible." To my knowledge, this still applies - maybe Sherry has an update on this? Alan Pereira From: John B. Lisle [ mailto:leg...@tqsi.com] Sent: 05 December 2013 17:32 To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Bill, How do you plan to publish your research? Knowing where you plan on ending up will guide you to how you use some of the new features of Legacy. My principal publishing vehicle is to web publish with TNG. As TNG does not know anything about Legacy SW sources, I have never bothered to adopt them. That said, when Legacy exports a family file with SourceWriter sources to a Gedcom, the SW Source is exported, more or less, as a Basic source which can imported to TNG. I am not using Shared Events until either Legacy extends its Gedcom export to export Shared events as regular events OR TNG supports Shared events and Legacy Gedcom of Shared events. If you plan to publish to Legacy Web Pages or Legacy Reports, you will make different decisions as they support both SW and sources and Shared Events. The tools you use are going to be based on the what you plan to do with your research. SourceWriter sources are a reasonably safe bet, no matter what you do. As Sherry from Support has said, she has had fewer than a handful of cases in 10 years when a user needed to go to a Gedcom file to recover their data. And most of them were pre-Legacy 7. So Ward's concern is real, but the risk today is only that your sources are converted to Basic Sources. Shared Events, on the other hand, are a work in progress. I really think they add a lot and would like to use them but until there is a way to get them into TNG, I have to defer. john. At 11:43 AM 12/5/2013, William Boswell wrote: I just started "converting" my basic citations over to SourceWriter.à Maybe I should keep them in basic if there's a problem exporting to a GEDCOM.à Thanks for letting me know before I got too far with it. I haven't explored Shared Events yet so I guess I should wait on that too. Bill Boswell From: Ward Walker [ mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:44 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe that a usable GEDCOM export is important. Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin Nicholson Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events Thanks Kirsty, Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt use Legacy :-( Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... Legacy User Group guidelines:http://www.LegacyFamilyTree
RE: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
I guess I don't know why this is a problem either. If a SW source is to be exported why don't they just export it as the nicely worded citation you see on the screen? Right now on my Worldconnect page I have this as a citation: 1. Abbrev: Australia, NSW, Electoral Rolls, Ancestry.com Title: Australian Electoral Rolls 1903-1980 Author: NSW, Australia Publication: Digital images. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. ancestry.com.au . http://www.ancestry.com.au : 2010 Page: Francis Nicholson; digital images, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, "1930 Electoral Rolls for the Commonwealth Division of New England State Electoral District of Liverpool Plains Subdivision of Werris Creek page 38," ancestry.com.au (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 5 Jul 2012) Why isn't it just the PAGE section without the "Page:"? Gavin... From: Ward Walker [mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] Sent: Friday, 6 December 2013 5:08 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] There have been several LUG discussions about this. When Legacy formats source citation output from a template-based source, in many cases (i.e., templates) it intermixes field values from the master source and the detail source to achieve a nicely worded citation. But upon export, it simply appends all the master fields together, followed by all the detail fields. The result, upon import, can be garbled data and misplaced punctuation or keywords. Some templates are worse than others. (I can’t tell if there is an additional, compounding bug in your example of an e-mail source.) Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Gavin, If you could include the lines from your gedcom that relate to this person and the source, then maybe a proper explanation can be given. But without knowing whats in the gedcom its just a guess as to how/why. Jay On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Gavin Nicholson wrote: > I guess I don't know why this is a problem either. If a SW source is to be > exported why don't they just export it as the nicely worded citation you > see on the screen? > > Right now on my Worldconnect page I have this as a citation: > > 1. Abbrev: Australia, NSW, Electoral Rolls, Ancestry.com > Title: Australian Electoral Rolls 1903-1980 > Author: NSW, Australia > Publication: Digital images. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. ancestry.com.au. > http://www.ancestry.com.au : 2010 > Page: Francis Nicholson; digital images, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, > "1930 Electoral Rolls for the Commonwealth Division of New England State > Electoral District of Liverpool Plains Subdivision of Werris Creek page > 38," ancestry.com.au (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 5 Jul 2012) > > Why isn't it just the PAGE section without the "Page:"? > > Gavin... > > From: Ward Walker [mailto:wnkwal...@rogers.com] > Sent: Friday, 6 December 2013 5:08 AM > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events > [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] > > There have been several LUG discussions about this. When Legacy formats > source citation output from a template-based source, in many cases (i.e., > templates) it intermixes field values from the master source and the detail > source to achieve a nicely worded citation. But upon export, it simply > appends all the master fields together, followed by all the detail fields. > The result, upon import, can be garbled data and misplaced punctuation or > keywords. Some templates are worse than others. (I can’t tell if there is > an additional, compounding bug in your example of an e-mail source.) > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and > on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Hi Jay, I guess the bits that are applicable are: 0 @S437@ SOUR 1 ABBR Australia, NSW, Electoral Rolls, Ancestry.com 1 TITL Australian Electoral Rolls 1903-1980 1 AUTH NSW, Australia 1 PUBL Digital images. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. ancestry.com. 2 CONC au . http://www.ancestry.com.au : 2010 2 SOUR @S437@ 3 PAGE Francis Nicholson; digital images, Ancestry.com Operation 4 CONC s Inc, "1930 Electoral Rolls for the Commonwealth Divisio 4 CONC n of New England State Electoral District of Liverpool Plai 4 CONC ns Subdivision of Werris Creek page 38," \i ancestry.com.au 4 CONC \i0 (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 5 Jul 2012) So the first block is info from the master source which in my opinion should not be included because all you want is the second block. Although I note that it is not 100% identical to the actual footnote/endnote citation which is what I think should actually be exported. This reads as: NSW, Australia, Australian Electoral Rolls 1903-1980, Francis Nicholson; digital images, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, "1930 Electoral Rolls for the Commonwealth Division of New England State Electoral District of Liverpool Plains Subdivision of Werris Creek page 38," ancestry.com.au (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 5 Jul 2012). Cit. Date: 5 Jul 2012. Thoughts, Gavin... From: Jay 1FamilyTree [mailto:1familytree@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 6 December 2013 9:16 AM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] Gavin, If you could include the lines from your gedcom that relate to this person and the source, then maybe a proper explanation can be given. But without knowing whats in the gedcom its just a guess as to how/why. Jay Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
so if what you sent me isnt the piece exactly then you have some other data somewhere What i see matches up Looking in the gedcom snippet remove the 4 Conc (7 characters in all because you include the space betwen the 4 and conc and the space after conc) (conc is short for Concatenate) Francis Nicholson; digital images, Ancestry.com Operation s Inc, "1930 Electoral Rolls for the Commonwealth Division of New England State Electoral District of Liverpool Plains Subdivision of Werris Creek page 38," \i ancestry.com.au\i0 (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 5 Jul 2012) so with the exception of some formatting html characters it looks the same to me. Francis Nicholson; digital images, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, "1930 Electoral Rolls for the Commonwealth Division of New England State Electoral District of Liverpool Plains Subdivision of Werris Creek page 38," ancestry.com.au(http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 5 Jul 2012) Looks like the gedcom output is doing what is expected of it. Jay On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Gavin Nicholson wrote: > Hi Jay, > > I guess the bits that are applicable are: > > 0 @S437@ SOUR > 1 ABBR Australia, NSW, Electoral Rolls, Ancestry.com > 1 TITL Australian Electoral Rolls 1903-1980 > 1 AUTH NSW, Australia > 1 PUBL Digital images. Ancestry.com Operations Inc. ancestry.com. > 2 CONC au . http://www.ancestry.com.au : 2010 > > 2 SOUR @S437@ > 3 PAGE Francis Nicholson; digital images, Ancestry.com Operation > 4 CONC s Inc, "1930 Electoral Rolls for the Commonwealth Divisio > 4 CONC n of New England State Electoral District of Liverpool Plai > 4 CONC ns Subdivision of Werris Creek page 38," \i ancestry.com.au > 4 CONC \i0 (http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 5 Jul 2012) > > So the first block is info from the master source which in my opinion > should not be included because all you want is the second block. Although I > note that it is not 100% identical to the actual footnote/endnote citation > which is what I think should actually be exported. This reads as: > > NSW, Australia, Australian Electoral Rolls 1903-1980, Francis Nicholson; > digital images, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, "1930 Electoral Rolls for the > Commonwealth Division of New England State Electoral District of Liverpool > Plains Subdivision of Werris Creek page 38," ancestry.com.au ( > http://www.ancestry.com.au : accessed 5 Jul 2012). Cit. Date: 5 Jul 2012. > > Thoughts, > Gavin... > > > From: Jay 1FamilyTree [mailto:1familytree@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, 6 December 2013 9:16 AM > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > Subject: Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events > [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] > > Gavin, > > If you could include the lines from your gedcom that relate to this person > and the source, then maybe a proper explanation can be given. > > But without knowing whats in the gedcom its just a guess as to how/why. > > Jay > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and > on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Yes that is true but the point is that it would be preferable for Legacy to simply output a single source which looks the footnote/endnote citation we see in the program. Gavin... From: Jay 1FamilyTree [mailto:1familytree@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 6 December 2013 12:04 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] [snip] Looks like the gedcom output is doing what is expected of it. Jay Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
But then it wouldn't be compliant with Gedcom standard On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:30 PM, Gavin Nicholson wrote: > Yes that is true but the point is that it would be preferable for Legacy > to simply output a single source which looks the footnote/endnote citation > we see in the program. > > > > Gavin... > > > > *From:* Jay 1FamilyTree [mailto:1familytree@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, 6 December 2013 12:04 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events > [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] > > > > [snip] > > > > Looks like the gedcom output is doing what is expected of it. > > > > Jay > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and > on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
RE: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]
Hmmm...I see your point. Still we have the problem with shared events not getting attached to all witnesses but that is for the other thread! Cheers, Gavin... From: Jay 1FamilyTree [mailto:1familytree@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 6 December 2013 12:58 PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] But then it wouldn't be compliant with Gedcom standard Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
