Jump to content


Photo

Copy Source from RM to FT - Does not copy URL WebTag


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Kevin

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 05:13 PM

Family Tree allows sources to be URL, especially when the URL is to information on FamilySearch. For each of my citations for a source I have a WebTag on the DetailText Tab that has the URL of the source. When I copy a citation/source from RM to FT, the WebTag URL is not copied. When copying the source from RM to FT please allow the URL from the WebTag to also be copied. The user could prompted if they want the URL copied or not.

#2 Wallace W Carroll

Wallace W Carroll

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:10 AM

RM 6.2.0.0 appears to only be copying from RM sources to FT the follow:
Source Name to Source Title.
Footnote to Where the Record I Found (Citation)

Missing (by design or a bug?)
Source ref
Detail ref
Research notes
Detail comments

Because I have many transcriptions of the actual text in sources, I was very excited to see 6.2.0.0 and very sad to not see theme copied to FT. Could you put all the RM fields with labels into FT’s Note field?

#3 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8477 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 11:32 AM

We have a Knowledge Base article that should answer your questions.
http://support.roots...rch-Family-Tree

Transferring sources between RootsMagic and FamilySearch Family Tree

RootsMagic 6.2 and later allows you to view the sources for a RootsMagic person and a FamilySearch Family Tree person side by side, as well as transferring those sources back and forth.

RootsMagic and FamilySearch treat sources in very different ways, which may lead to some confusion when trying to transfer sources back and forth. Here is an overview of some of those differences and issues you may encounter.
  • FamilySearch Family Tree only allows sources to be "attached" to people and families (not events like in RootsMagic).
  • A source "attached" to a person in FamilySearch can also be "tagged to" 6 different items: name, gender, birth, christening, death, and burial. This tagging only tags the fact "type" on FamilySearch, not a fact itself. This means if you tag the Name with a source, it is tagged to all names, not just a specific name.
  • FamilySearch currently does not support tagging any other fact type with sources, so you can't attach or tag a marriage event, occupation event, etc. on FamilySearch.
  • FamilySearch sources do not have fields to support repositories, many of the text/comments fields provided in RootsMagic, media, etc. When transferring a source to FamilySearch, RootsMagic will attempt to send as much information as FamilySearch is capable of holding.
  • FamilySearch supports one (1) URL per source. If you transfer a source which has WebTags attached, RootsMagic will send the first WebTag URL for the source to FamilySearch. Note that RootsMagic uses the master source WebTags and not the specific source detail WebTags since the FamilySearch source will not be attached to specific facts.
  • When adding a new source to FamilySearch, you can "attach" the source to the person or families, and "tag" the source to any of the supported facts all at once. If you "tag" a fact type RootsMagic will automatically "attach" the source to the person for you as well.
  • When bringing a source into RootsMagic from FamilySearch, you can attach it to the person or any of his / her facts at the same time. RootsMagic will create a "free form" source since FamilySearch does not support templates.

Renee
RootsMagic

#4 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6257 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 01:32 PM

What is transferred to FSFT? Is it:
  • the footnote sentence as we see in RM reports, or
  • the concatenation of the TITL and PAGE values that RM exports to standard GEDCOM, or
  • something else?

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#5 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8477 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 01:54 PM

It will include the full footnote so that is the Master Source and Source Details. Then it also includes the Master Source Text (not comments) and 1st WebTag. It's not accepting anything else right now.
Renee
RootsMagic

#6 Kevin

Kevin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 02:20 PM

Can I suggest that if the Master Source does NOT have a WebTag that the Web Tag from the Source Detail be Attached, or even let the user choose. I understand that the Source in FT is not attached to a specific fact but in general the WebTag associated with the SourceDetail is probably more useful (probably person specific) than the WebTag associated with the MasterSource which would generally be an entire book, webSite (e.g. findAGarge), a database (e.g. "Wiscon Birth Records 1800-1900") on a webSite (e,g, Ancestry.com or FamilySearch.org), etc.

Of coure is one is use Extreme Splitting of sources the current approach works fine, but I guess that most people are not using Extreme Splitting.

#7 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6257 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 02:22 PM

So a source transferred from FSFT to RM goes into the Footnote field of Free Form? Replicated in Short Footnote and Bibliography? Nada in the Source Details Page field?

If so, every unique citation of a common Master Source from RM transfers to a unique source in FSFT and then back to a unique Master Source in RM?

If so, voila! Jerry! A converter from lumped sources to Extreme Splits.

Tom user of RM7550 FTM2017 Ancestry.ca FamilySearch.org FindMyPast.com
SQLite_Tools_For_Roots_Magic_in_PR_Celti wiki, exploiting the database in special ways >>> RMtrix-tiny.png app, a bundle of RootsMagic utilities.


#8 Wallace W Carroll

Wallace W Carroll

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 21 June 2013 - 04:02 PM

In your fourth bullet you say that FamilySearch sources do not have fields to support repositories, many of the text/comments fields provided in RootsMagic, media, etc. When transferring a source to FamilySearch, RootsMagic will attempt to send as much information as FamilySearch is capable of holding.

So could you give me the option to put all the RM fields with labels into FT’s Note field? I would love it.

#9 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8477 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:39 AM

Can I suggest that if the Master Source does NOT have a WebTag that the Web Tag from the Source Detail be Attached, or even let the user choose. I understand that the Source in FT is not attached to a specific fact but in general the WebTag associated with the SourceDetail is probably more useful (probably person specific) than the WebTag associated with the MasterSource which would generally be an entire book, webSite (e.g. findAGarge), a database (e.g. "Wiscon Birth Records 1800-1900") on a webSite (e,g, Ancestry.com or FamilySearch.org), etc.

Of coure is one is use Extreme Splitting of sources the current approach works fine, but I guess that most people are not using Extreme Splitting.


Confirming enhancement request is in our tracking system.
Renee
RootsMagic

#10 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8477 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:40 AM

So a source transferred from FSFT to RM goes into the Footnote field of Free Form? Replicated in Short Footnote and Bibliography? Nada in the Source Details Page field?

If so, every unique citation of a common Master Source from RM transfers to a unique source in FSFT and then back to a unique Master Source in RM?

If so, voila! Jerry! A converter from lumped sources to Extreme Splits.


Yes, I understand it would work perfectly for Jerry too.
Renee
RootsMagic

#11 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8477 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:43 AM

In your fourth bullet you say that FamilySearch sources do not have fields to support repositories, many of the text/comments fields provided in RootsMagic, media, etc. When transferring a source to FamilySearch, RootsMagic will attempt to send as much information as FamilySearch is capable of holding.

So could you give me the option to put all the RM fields with labels into FT’s Note field? I would love it.


The Family Tree will have the option soon in the API to transfer notes. So we can't make extra things that don't transfer over to FT from RM sources go into a note field. FamilySearch needs to allow the transfer of more data to the FT Sources in their API so we can send everything.
Renee
RootsMagic

#12 Wallace W Carroll

Wallace W Carroll

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 05:42 PM

Renee:

If I understood what you said about the note field in a source, the API does not yet allow transferring anything into a FT Source's Note field. Is that correct? When the API does allow it, do you plan to transfer all the RM source data into a FT source or just certain fields? Will the RM user have any configuration control over which fields transfer?

#13 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8477 posts

Posted 26 June 2013 - 09:50 AM

We want to be able to send everything over to FT, so if the FT API will support it we will add that capability.

The only sections in the RM Sources right now that go over to FSFT is best understood if you open the Edit Source screen.

Citation Tab - all information included in transfer to FT (Master Source & Source Details sections)
Master Text Tab - Only the Source Text, Not the Source Comments. It will also include the first WebTag that you have attached on this page.

None of the other sections are able to be transfer over right now.
Renee
RootsMagic

#14 B Synnerlig

B Synnerlig

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 25 October 2019 - 02:21 AM

... ...

  • FamilySearch supports one (1) URL per source. If you transfer a source which has WebTags attached, RootsMagic will send the first WebTag URL for the source to FamilySearch. Note that RootsMagic uses the master source WebTags and not the specific 

... ...

 

 

Hi there. Sorry for bringing up this since long forgotten thread but I thought it was better than creating a new one. 

I understand that it works as described above. It's the way it has been designed.

However, I use mostly Swedish Church Books as sources. In my case, when sending a "source" (or more correct I guess, a citation of a source) for an event to FamilySearch I find it useless to attach a URL to the whole Church Book, It won't help the person reading the web page at FamilySearch to find and verify the citation in that church book, would it? We all know how time consuming it is to read that script, don't we?

 

So, almost always, my source in RM is a specific church book. For example a church book containing birth records during a time period that might cover 10 years or so. I have an URL for each citation that I've created in RM that will lead to a specific page in that church book but since the source might be cited maybe hundreds of times for different persons and different events I can't put anything in the Web Tag URL for the source. Instead I've put this piece of information in the specific citation (source details WebTag) where I think it belongs.

 

I just wonder, wouldn't it be more correct and more logic for RM to send the first WebTag found in the specific source detail instead of when transferring sources to FamilySearch (As opposite of sending the first WebTag found in the master source)? (Alternatively only if the WebTag found in the master source has not been set)

Cheers!  :D



#15 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3595 posts

Posted 25 October 2019 - 07:26 AM

I deal with this type of a situation in a completely different way. Namely, I have become a complete source splitter. That means that I put 100% of my sourcing data into RM's Master Source and 0% of my data into RM's Source Details. That means that I have an enormously huge Master Source list and it also means that I can't reuse the data from a single Master Source (like a whole book) for multiple citations of the whole book (like for individual pages of the book). I take this somewhat unusual approach to facilitate making corrections to sources. With a more traditional approach where sourcing data is distributed between the Master Source and the Source Details, when a particular RM citation is memorized and pasted and when I subsequently have to make any corrections to all the copies of that citation, I have to find each copy and correct it manually. It's a major pain. With my approach, I only have to make the correction once in the Master Source and all the citations are fixed instantly.

 

The reason I mention this is that my approach would solve your problem completely, even with no changes in RM. Namely, your Web Tag which is associated with the Master Source would be the Web Tag which is copied to FamilySearch and each page in the book would have a separate Master Source.

 

However, I do have a problem which is sort of the reverse of yours. So far, I have not chosen to print "source notes" as a part of printing footnotes and endnotes. Printing such "source notes" is an option for any RM report that can include footnotes and endnotes. There are two such "source notes" for a Master Source called Source Text and Source Comments. There are two such note for a Source Detail called Research Notes and Comments (they really should be called Citation Text and Research Comments). The only "source notes" that can be printed are the Research Notes and Comments, which are the "source notes" which as a complete source splitter I am not using. My "source notes" instead are entered into the Source Text and Source Detail field, which cannot be printed as a part of printing footnotes and endnotes. I have gotten around the problem by writing an SQlite script which unconditionally copies each Source Text note to the corresponding Research Notes field and which unconditionally copies each Source Detail field to the corresponding Comments field. That way, if ever I wish to print "source notes" as a part of printing a report, the data would be there to do so. It also means that I have an automated way to propagate any corrections I make to my "source notes" into the Source Details field.

Finally, the inability to reuse a single Master Source for multiple citations like for different pages of the same book turns out to be a red herring. I solve the problem simply by starting any new Master Source by copying an existing Master Source that is most similar to it. The one problem with my approach that I haven't been able to solve is that it effectively makes it impossible to produce a Bibliography of my sources. The ability to create a meaningful Bibliography from RM depends on distributing sourcing data more traditionally between the Master Source and the Source Details.

 

Jerry