Jump to content


Photo

Importing TMG Source# to RM Source Reference#

tmg source

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 ketchell

ketchell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 12:52 PM

After importing my TMG database into RM, the source reference number field is blank. Is the TMG Source# not imported? Did I miss something?

 

If not imported it will be very labor intensive to manually add a reference number one by one into each of 2000+ sources. What did other TMG migrators do? 

 

The source number is critical as I organize all my media documents by that number in a source folder.

 

I will be cleaning up sources and consolidating census entries (split to lump) but that will still leave a large number of source numbers to enter manually.

 

Also, is there some way to sort the Source List in RM by reference number? Is there a way to see cites per source without creating a report? Expect not. Just a few of the features I will miss in TMG.



#2 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3459 posts

Posted 19 February 2016 - 01:21 PM

Are you referring to the <Source reference number> field of the Details Text tab in the Edit Source window being blank ?

Nope to the rest of your questions.


---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#3 blanchem

blanchem

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 20 February 2016 - 11:42 AM

I just put my data on RM and am also concerned about the sources as I, too, file all sources by number.  I figure I'll continue to use TMG as long as it's working as I'm too old to try to number existing sources.  Perhaps Mr. Buzbee will come up with an input for source numbers.  Also, the census records were entered so that all household members individual reports showed the full census where they were listed.  Sorry to miss that.  Again when I print individual reports I'll use TMG. RM will serve as a backup the same as Ancestry.com and FamilySearch.org until RM comes up with new inputs.  Another thing I've used is different colors for ancestors, collaterals, and non-relatives.  Unless I've missed something in my reading, colors can't be used permanently.   I'm keeping an open mind and will welcome new ways to use RM.  Thanks for your help.



#4 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3611 posts

Posted 20 February 2016 - 02:34 PM

 Unless I've missed something in my reading, colors can't be used permanently.

 

You can make your colors in RM permanent or not. It's your choice. But there are some caveats.

 

The first caveat that jumps out to new RM users usually is that color coding is not "dynamic'. For example, if you color code all descendants of John Doe as red and then add a new descendant of John Doe, the new descendant is not automatically red. RM does not store the rules used for color coding individuals as red. Once an individual is red, he or she is red and that's it. There is no indication as to what rule or process or data was used to color code the individual as red. So if permanent color coding is important to you in RM, then regularly you will need to reapply your color coding rules.

 

Another caveat is that there can be conflicts in color coding and conflicts are not identified for you automatically. If you color code descendants of John Doe as red and descendants of William Smith as blue, and if you have a descendant of both then the descendant of both will have whichever color you last used for color coding the individual.

 

One of our frequent contributors to these forums has a user defined fact for each person in her database that describes the color for that person. The user defined fact can be used at any time as the criterion for reapplying each color, one color at a time. The difficulty for a TMG user converting to RM with user defined facts is that user defined facts have to be added manually one person at a time. They are not already there as are the flags in TMG.

 

Until and unless RM solves this problem, my personal advice is to use RM's Named Group facility where you might have used color coding in TMG. Just like RM's color coding, RM's Named Groups are not "dynamic". If you make a Named Group of John Doe's descendants and then add a new descendant, the new descendant is not automatically added to the group. RM users have been waiting since RM4 for a solution to this problem. An advantage to Named Groups as compared to color coding is that there are no conflicts because an individual can be in more than one group at the same time. Another advantage of Named Groups is that you can use them to implement several different coloring schemes as your needs change because it is extremely easy to color code individuals based in their membership in Named Groups. Which is to say, you are probably better off thinking of Named Groups as a somewhat permanent way of grouping your individuals and thinking of color coding as a more temporary way of grouping your individuals.

 

But as I said at the beginning,you can certainly choose to use colors in a very permanent way. You just have to remember that RM does not constantly re-apply your color coding rules as you add new people to your database.

 

Jerry



#5 John_of_Ross_County

John_of_Ross_County

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 663 posts

Posted 20 February 2016 - 07:40 PM

Also the command to Clear All Colors does not have a "Do you really mean to do this question?"

 

Since I have no intention of having permanent color coding, I don't care about the warning that is not given.



#6 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8493 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 09:44 AM

Issue with TMG Import of Source Reference Numbers noted in tracking system. 


Renee
RootsMagic

#7 ketchell

ketchell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 22 February 2016 - 09:49 PM

Great to hear its on a tracking system list now. Since I'm a new RM user looking at migrating from TMG -- what does getting on the tracking system mean though? Is it a wish list? Would I know if the function might be added and if so the timeline? Just wondering as it will be tedious if I switch and would wait if its a possibility in the next year.  

 

Right now I'm just exploring all the functionality and features so I can see what I need to change from my use of TMG. I've discovered the source details is a very nice.



#8 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8493 posts

Posted 23 February 2016 - 10:14 AM

Yes, the tracking list is a wish list for development to look at. It also contains reported issues. We never release a time frame when a feature will or will not be added.


Renee
RootsMagic

#9 ketchell

ketchell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 18 June 2016 - 11:58 AM

Renee - What is the likelihood that during a TMG import to RM, that a source number from TMG will be imported into the RM Master Text? If this is low on the list, I will have to manually figure something out before committing my sources to RM vs TMG.

 

Also, what is the difference between Source Master Text number and the Source Detail Text number? If I have to do this manually I need to know what is the intention of each. How it effects source print/view lists, citations, etc I don't want to presume that the Master Text source reference number (optional) field is the right one to place the TMG Source # without confirmation.

 

Thanks.



#10 Nettie

Nettie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1655 posts

Posted 18 June 2016 - 01:26 PM

I use the Source Master Text as my main Source number.  The only time the Source Detail Text number is used if it is recopied and is same as the Source Master Text, in Census Records they differ.

I am a lumper and have one file for each census year, but the Source Detail Text number  is consistent to the state & roll # to the county they are in.  

AS the microfilm number is one per census year are given to states by the Census Bureau by one roll number [usually one roll per county,] I could never remember what the county roll number was so I started adding that it to my citations.  

  • M593 is year 1870, roll # is constant to county but newer census years as counties grew larger or cities, the Census Bureau gave them two or three numbers.  
  • So my codes are M593 is Census of 1870 = Cen13.  Then the Cen13- dash is for Sate & county. Cen13-KYB is 1870 Bracken Co KY.  1850 is Cen10-KYB = 1850 Bracken Co KY.
    •  If two counties start with B then I use 2 or three alpha letters are part of the code.  
  • This was easier for me to remember than that microfilm #. 

To be clearer: for the Source Master Text  census record is Cen13 for year 1870  

Source Detail Text number  is Cen13-KY13B  = 1870 KY Bracken Co 

 

There are lots of ways you can configure this.  This was my way of doing it. Also have 9 counties in KY between 2 Direct Line families.

Why because when I do printouts of research notes or the list of records under one census year this was more helpful than the microfilm # even though it was in/on the citation/footnotes.


Genealogy:
"I work on genealogy only on days that end in "Y"." [Grin!!!]
from www.GenealogyDaily.com.
"Documentation....The hardest part of genealogy"
"Genealogy is like Hide & Seek: They Hide & I Seek!"
" Genealogists: People helping people.....that's what it's all about!"
from http://www.rootsweb....nry/gentags.htm
Using FO and RM since FO2.0 


#11 Renee Zamora

Renee Zamora

    Advanced Member

  • Support
  • PipPipPip
  • 8493 posts

Posted 20 June 2016 - 09:36 AM

Renee - What is the likelihood that during a TMG import to RM, that a source number from TMG will be imported into the RM Master Text? If this is low on the list, I will have to manually figure something out before committing my sources to RM vs TMG.

 

Time frames on implementation is not something development releases. I know the TMG import was extremely difficult and they tried to map everything they could to RM fields. I'm not sure what the issues were on mapping the source number.


Renee
RootsMagic

#12 ketchell

ketchell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 25 January 2018 - 10:07 AM

Posting this as fyi for other TMG users. A year later I still use TMG as my primary database. I have and will continue to do major cleanup of how I use TMG for a cleaner import into RM for a permanent future move. Currently I only import into RM to use Gedsite to create a website. If you use Second Site, Gedsite is the answer for future proofing website creation. My solution is to use Gedsite sentence structure (minimalist style per Jerry Bryan, many thanks on idea), and the display looks good with a few tweaks as Gedsite interprets TMG data that RM does not. John Cardinal is working on Gedsite to import TMG directly. This would simplify my future proofing by eliminating Second Site, and further my goal to cleanup my TMG database to be more generic. I read this forum diligently to discover how RM long time users keep their data gedcom flexible and more generic for importing across programs.

Specific to the numbering of sources, just like Jerry Bryans minimalist sentence structure, sometimes I need to rethink my approach.

My use of TMG source numbering as my digital or paper numbering system (started years ago so not changing as prefer accession number system as a librarian) is a problem importing into RM (it doesn't import). I assume this to be the case for import into any other system. The need to retain the number with a source is critical for my original document storage. My solution was to create a sourceID element in all TMG sources. This makes my sourceID a standard source field that will export/import. This field imports just fine into RM as a source field. This actually works out better than expected. The number is part of the source record rather than a particular programs numbering system. It can be searched as a field. It can be included or not in TMG, RM or Gedsite source citations, etc. it can be exported again as gedcom to Gedsite.

I did have to reserve a TMG source element to use exclusively for the source number in each source type. As there are a limited number available in TMG that could pose a problem for some. This is not a problem in RM. As a source lumper, I touched about 1500 source records in TMG and added the source ID to each. No need to edit anything in RM on import so I can import multiple times. It took a couple of days but worth it.

#13 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6270 posts

Posted 25 January 2018 - 10:26 AM

Congrats on working out a process to transfer your source numbers. Your attention to detail is admirable.

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.


#14 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3611 posts

Posted 25 January 2018 - 12:30 PM

My solution is to use Gedsite sentence structure 

 

I think I understand what you are saying. RM's "extended" GEDCOM includes sentence template information, and GedSite will interpret this information very accurately and completely. Therefore, one approach with GedSite and RM is to have your GedSite pages look almost exactly like your RM narrative reports. Virtually no effort is required on the GedSite side of the house to make this happen. It all sort of "just works". It's very magical how easy it is.

 

However, I looked at all of GedSite's formatting options and I found one that I liked for the Web much better than what I was using for printed reports from RM. I still use a very minimalist style in GedSite, but it's also columnar which befits the Web. Therefore, I went to the trouble of defining sentence templates on the GedSite of the house rather than using the sentence templates that came over from RM via GEDCOM. Defining the sentence templates on the GedSite side of the house was very easy and didn't take very long. So when you say that you are using the GedSite sentence structure, it sounds like you are doing it the same way I did.

 

Finally, the longer I do this genealogy stuff the more I think it's wise to separate the formatting and the presentation of data from the actual data itself. I think of the formatting of the data and the presentation of the data as metadata. With this kind of separation, the way dates are stored doesn't have to be the same as the way dates are presented. The way place names are stored doesn't have to be the same as the way place names are presented. It should be easier to present the data in different languages. Etc. GedSite doesn't implement this idea fully, but I think it's a big step in the right direction. I wish some brave soul would come out with a product called GedReport (or some such name) that would read GEDCOM produced by any genealogy software and from that GEDCOM produce very nice printed reports based on metadata such as sentence templates that are in GedReport itself.

 

Jerry



#15 TomH

TomH

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6270 posts

Posted 25 January 2018 - 02:27 PM

In broad terms, your 'GedReport' concept is implemented in The Complete Genealogy Reporter http://www.tcgr.buft...rg/tcgrover.htm

However, I suspect it is neither completely supportive of RM GEDCOM nor equipped with the columnar feature you seek. A 30 day free trial will alliw you to find out.

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.


#16 ketchell

ketchell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 27 January 2018 - 01:59 PM

I should note for other TMG users that Tom's SQL fixes are also critical. He created an author reverse as the default in TMG is the opposite of RM. Fixes like TMG person ID to be the RM RIN was also critical to me as I had used that number as further ID for a person in my storage of documents. Big thanks to Tom for the SQL query fixes!



#17 ketchell

ketchell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 27 January 2018 - 02:17 PM

In response to Jerry about GedSite sentence structure. Yes, I do all my sentence structure formatting in GedSite now. RM does not transfer witness/role sentences. I decided rather than to upkeep both TMG and RM sentences for the short term, I would rely instead on GedSite which is wonderfully flexible. John Cardinal said he will probably have GedSite direclty import TMG data. That solves the problem of sentences for me and I will keep sentence structure separate from TMG or RM at that point. I had to retain sentences in TMG for SS, but with a TMG/GedSite, I can just do sentences in only GedSite. I am only interested in web presentation because of the flexiblity of GedSite. Also, building on top of your idea of minimalist sentences works great in GedSite (sentence construction) as I have given up on narrative sentences and use the 3 column format which is much easier to read. Minimalist sentences and GedSite make all this much simpler and easier. The best reading website I have found is http://www.ramblingr.../RYB-p/p239.htm- it incorporates the minimalist sentence and uses the note for the details that make family history interesting. It also summarizes to avoid repetition. This site was created in Second Site, but I can get close to the presentation look in GedSite now, and expect it will only get better as John continues development. 

 

Completely agree about separation of the data vs presentation. What I'm working on now is cleaning up 30 years of data that has already gone through 2 program deaths to be more flexible and portable based on ideas that you, Tom and others have shared on the forum. Very helpful for those of us thinking through new processes and practices 20 years later. I'm finding that the rethink required to clean up TMG data to RM migration for the future and ideas about gedcom transfer factor in.

 

My most difficult challenge right now is how to create EE-like citations using either the TMG or RM  model. From experts like you-all, I decided to stick with a single citation details field as I currently use that model (no split CDs) in TMG. I'm still a lumper so looking for a method style that will transport from TMG to RM and into GedSite. In TMG and RM you simply cannot construct a EE style narrative with splitting the CD/CitationDetails. I may just end up using a modified EE (like where the access date is placed) which includes all the information but in a slightly different order. 



#18 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3611 posts

Posted 28 January 2018 - 10:45 AM

RM does not transfer witness/role sentences. 

 

My experience is that RM does transfer default witness/role sentences but does not transfer witness/role sentences which are customized for a specific shared fact. I hope I'm interpreting the situation correctly. If so, then this is definitely a bug in RM that needs to be fixed in RM8.

 

Jerry



#19 Jerry Bryan

Jerry Bryan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3611 posts

Posted 28 January 2018 - 11:04 AM

My most difficult challenge right now is how to create EE-like citations using either the TMG or RM  model. From experts like you-all, I decided to stick with a single citation details field as I currently use that model (no split CDs) in TMG. I'm still a lumper so looking for a method style that will transport from TMG to RM and into GedSite. In TMG and RM you simply cannot construct a EE style narrative with splitting the CD/CitationDetails. I may just end up using a modified EE (like where the access date is placed) which includes all the information but in a slightly different order. 

 I became a source splitter in RM because of the way RM handles citations that are Memorized and then Pasted many times. Under these circumstances, if you need to change any data that is in RM's Source Detail part of the citation, then you have to chase down every single copy of the citation and make the same change to each copy. A citation for an obituary can be a classic example of the problem because a citation for an obituary tends to be copied many, many times. But citations for obituaries are far from the only citations with this problem in RM. My solution therefore has been to move all source/citations fields into RM's Master Source and to leave RM's Source Detail field empty.

 

Serendipitously, my extremely split citations in RM seem to transfer extremely well to GedSite without me having to do anything to make it happen. I haven't studied GedSite's handling of citations enough yet to understand why I have been so lucky. I just accept my good fortune and move on.

 

EE doesn't say anything about source splitting and source lumping. It just describes what the final citation sentences should look like without specifying the process whereby a program such as RM should create the sentences. In practice, the lumping and splitting of RM's builtin source templates depends only on which fields are marked for inclusion in the RM Master Source vs. which fields are marked for inclusion in the RM Source Detail.

 

I haven't played with it, but in principle you should be able to make a copy of any RM source template that's based on EE and change some or all of the Source Detail fields to be Master Source fields. Having done so, the use of the copied and modified templates should produce EE compliant citations that look identical to the original but which are completely split. As such, they might transfer extremely well into GedSite. I use source templates of my own design in RM, so I haven't played with making the builtin templates into split templates for use with GedSite. But it's hard to see any reason it wouldn't work pretty well - assuming you are willing to be a source splitter with long lists of RM Master Sources.

 

Jerry



#20 ketchell

ketchell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 29 January 2018 - 04:53 PM

Jerry, yes I am a lumper. In RM I can make citation details create an exact EE style, but in TMG I do not split the CD so would need to redo most citations after import into RM. Currently my CD in TMG imports into RM and exports out to Gedsite with a close but not exact EE style. Will probably stick with that for now, and leave a massive overhaul after pruning sources and finding better sources with original images that were not available when I started years ago.