Jump to content


Photo

Split the Description field and...

wishlist description field repositories witness

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 JoopvB

JoopvB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 27 December 2014 - 04:46 AM

I am in the process of moving from TMG convert to RM apostle (excuse the wording... it's Christmas Time :)).

 

To ease that process I have a few suggestions for the RM-team that, I think, are not hard to implement and might also be of benefit to RM users of the first hour (and without changing the behavior for current databases).

 

1. Extend the template language to accept not only [Desc] but also [Desc1, Desc2 etc.] to support a kind of split description/memo as TMG does.

 

2. In the TMG import map Mx to Descx.

 

3. Extend the template language for sources with words like Repository etc. to link to the Repository data entered. Currently it is possible to have inconsistencies between the repository data and user defined data in the source template to reflect a repository (it is not linked). In TMG it is linked (as I think it should be) and when RM does also create a link then the conversion could be extended to support that. N.B. There is now a way around it; TomH has created a great SQL script to move TMG repository data to fields in the source template. But, I emphasise that this still leaves RM open to inconsistent Repository and Source info. So, consider this a RM specific wish.

 

4. Shared fact witnesses have there own description field in TMG. In RM they only have their own note field. Please give them their own Description field as well (with the above extensions). This would greatly benefit current RM users and make TMG conversions even more straightforward.

 

Last night I saw a falling star... so may my wishes come true. :)

 

Joop

 

P.S. The TNG import doesn't copy non-English custom sentences to RM. I can imagine that (since the data is there) it might be something to consider support in the next RM update?

 



#2 CherylCh

CherylCh

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 77 posts

Posted 28 December 2014 - 10:27 AM

Although it's not enforced within RM itself, the [Desc] field has a 100 character limit that will rear its ugly head upon GEDCOM export/import, which includes the drag and drop capability within RM.  I don't know what the impact of a direct import from TMG would be, but perhaps that is why the import puts all the [M]s into the Note field, which apparently has no size limit.

 

The disadvantages of using the Note field are that it can't be referenced in sentence templates, and if included in narrative reports, the footnote appears between the fact sentence and the note instead of after the note.  Also, selecting inclusion of the Note field applies to all fact types in a narrative report; it can't be done on a fact by fact basis.

 

I've been experimenting with putting larger amounts of text in the sentence box itself.  There are some drawbacks, which are discussed here: http://forums.rootsm...omize-sentence/.

 

I realize that if, in TMG, you made a lot of use of split Memos, these options may be less than ideal.  They meet my needs, but I was never what you might call a TMG "power user," and I still have to figure out what to do with my fancy census sentences for 1880 through 1940.

 

Cheryl (also a convert from TMG B) )



#3 JoopvB

JoopvB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts

Posted 29 December 2014 - 04:20 AM

Hi Cheryl,

 

Good to know I am not alone (as a TMG convert).

 

I've read your discussions about the length of the description field and suggestions of others about how to bypass the problem(s).

 

As a - in the mean time - regular reader of the RM forums, I get the feeling that a lot of suggestions (be it from ex-TMG'ers or SQL experts or ...) are answered with bypasses or something like "this is RM, don't try to change it into something else". I don't buy that. RM2 (I've never seen nor used it) is quite different from RM4 (I used that) and is most certainly quite different from RM7! The same goes for the various releases of the GEDCOM standard. Let's not forget Dos, Windows 95, Windows NT and Windows 8.1 (to name a player in a different field). So what I am trying to get across is to let's keep an open mind for Genealogy first and software second. To me (as a researcher) this means as less text and notes as possible, mapping source data to the database as good as can be, having a most flexible meta-language to represent data in the database in reports and consistency (e.g. my remark in the previous post on repository information).

 

So, in my view there is nothing wrong with learning from some of the extra's that e.g. TMG provides (especially if it can be extended and implemented in a modern way). Limitation on field sizes like that of the description field seem to me as belonging to the previous century. My smallest personal video is larger than my whole TMG and RM database together and I have thousands :). Also limitations on GEDCOM 5.5 are really work in progress (moving to a new GEDCOM 6).

 

This ends my new year speech for 2015. ;)

 

Regards, Joop



#4 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8368 posts

Posted 05 January 2015 - 01:04 PM

Confirming enhancements are in our tracking system. 


Renee
RootsMagic





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: wishlist, description field, repositories, witness