RE: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]

[Gavin Nicholson]

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

Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]

[Jay 1FamilyTree]

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]

[Gavin Nicholson]

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]

[Jay 1FamilyTree]

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]

[Gavin Nicholson]

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]

[Jay 1FamilyTree]

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]

[Gavin Nicholson]

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]

[John B. Lisle]

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.  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.aspArchived messages after Nov. 21 2009:http://www.mail-arc

Re: Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]

[Ward Walker]

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

Sourewriter and gedcoms, was RE: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events]

[Alan Pereira]

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. 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