Jump to content


Photo

Splitting an RM database into four


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 NoŽl Sant

NoŽl Sant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 31 January 2007 - 11:29 AM

I have had a request for information from my RootsMagic database from a cousin on my father's side. She only wants the stuff on my fathers side, plus my mother herself, as my father's wife, and similarly my wife. The slickest way I can find is (on a COPY of my DB!) to disconnect my mother from her parents, my wife from hers, and then drag myself over to a new DB, specifying "whole tree". And then create a CD from that.

Then a second cousin on my mother's side wants the info from my mother's side, and my wife's sister wants her stuff. And I can do the same thing, but if I update the DB and want to send out an updated CD I have to do it again.

It would be much easier to split my DB into four in the first place. But then my wife and I would be at the bottom of all four trees. Any updates to us and I have to enter it four times. So I can put just my wife and myself (and children if we had any) into a fifth DB. But then I have no parents and no sister, from my DB, and my father has no from his DB, etc. I really need a way of linking from one DB to another, a hyperlink, in fact.

I haven't found a way of doing this. I'm sure this is a well known problem. What do other people do?

And is there a slicker way of splitting off one family than the one I mentioned at the start?

#2 craigg

craigg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts

Posted 31 January 2007 - 06:24 PM

It is seldon an easy feat to split a data base as you would like to do.
I solved the problem by creating a user fact to use to identify which people belong to various families in my data base. Most people have one or two of these facts, while I have over a dozen. I added the facts as I was combining several databases into one, so that I could add the fact to the GEDCOM file fairly easily. If you're have one large data base, it would be considerable more difficult to do this.

#3 Jim Belanger

Jim Belanger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 31 January 2007 - 06:46 PM

Color code the ancestors or descendents, deal with them, then change the color back.
Do that for each family using the color as the determining factor???
JIM.B.NH

#4 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 31 January 2007 - 08:13 PM

See this post for Alfred's explanation on how to color code spouses' parents.

http://www.rootsmagi...hl=color coding

You can use color coding to add a user defined fact for different family groups just as you would to make a gedcom.

My fact is named !Database and I use one !Database fact for each family group in a person's record.

It makes making partial gedcoms so much easier. Also, I'm able to use the fact as a search filter for reports

You do have to remember to add the user defined fact to each new person, but it soon becomes a habit. You can run a search filter to check for anyone that you missed.

It is well worth while to add this fact even though it is a lot of work in a large database. I did it initially so I could easily divide up my database to import to my PDA. But, I've found it so useful otherwise, I don't regret the time it took to do it.

Laura

#5 NoŽl Sant

NoŽl Sant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 11:06 AM

So I have to use one big database - well I'd resigned myself to that - and then use color coding or a family fact type to filter to a gedcom file. Color coding (NO! colour coding, dammit) seems quickest in the short term, I'd need to add a couple of spouses each time, but the family fact type seems best in the long run, even though it will be a lot of work initially.

But I'm not sure I understood Laura's sentence: "You can use color coding to add a user defined fact for different family groups just as you would to make a gedcom." Should that read "... color coding OR add a user defined fact..."?

Anyway, many thanks,

NoŽl

P.S. Sorry about the British English rant.

#6 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 01:42 PM

You can use user defined facts to set the color/colour coding, but you cannot very well use the color coding to set the user defined facts.


For instance:
User defined fact: "Family" use only description, no place or date.
use as many letters as you want in the description as flags. an "A" may signify the Aderson line
A "B" may be the "Baker" line, if you search for someone by data fields, containing "A" they would be connected to the Anderson line
If you use an OR -- Family-- contains-- B
You will have both the Anderson and Baker lines

The biggest problem is remembering to enter and fill in the Family fact for everyone.


(( OH, by the way, someone must have thrown the "U" from "Colour" overboard with the tea and it is in the bottom of Boston Harbor somewhere. tongue.gif ))
Alfred

#7 Laura

Laura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4276 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 06:34 PM

Sorry I wasn't clear.

To use color coding to find the people you need to assign the user definded fact to, go to the oldest ancestors of one family group and color code all the descendants and spouses one color, maybe red.

Then go to RM Exporer and add the user defined fact to all the persons who have that color.

When I did this, as I came to a spouse with parents and or sibling, I color coded those families green. When I finished adding the fact to the red group, I then added it to the green group.

Then I cleared the colors for everyone and went to the ancestors of the next family group and started all over.

When I finsihed, I again cleard the colors from everyone.

I then used Color Coding>People selected from a list to search for <fact> <does not contain> and leave the <search for> field blank to turn the people without the fact to red and added that fact to each one.

Laura

#8 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3493 posts

Posted 04 February 2007 - 11:27 PM

NOTE: Please ignore my advice and skip right on to the next post... where Alfred clarifies the flaw in my advice here.
I failed to test my recommendation, which would lose all other facts for each of the individuals!!!


If you do ever decide to experiment with breaking out these groups you ~could~ try exporting each of the desired family lines to a GEDCOM and attempt to ADD a custom "user-designed" fact to each individual, by using this -rough- guideline. If they were then reassembled into a -new- master database they would have the custom fact as a search/sort aid. Just a thought.

First, in a new database, create the custom "user-designed" fact (whatever fields you'd like to include and however you'd like the fact sentence to "read"in reports.) THEN, add one individual (name only... will do) and attach that FACT to the individual. Export that individual to a GEDCOM and open it in a Text editor.

Observe how the FACT is attached to the individual AND the FACT definition is also listed in consecutive lines. Gather up the two parts into a consecutive set of lines for subsequent attachment to each individual in the database.

Use the "color-code" method -or- the normal "Select people" dialog to gather up the individuals that you want to mark with a custom fact. Then export them to a GEDCOM. Open the GEDCOM in any text editor (must be capable of "multi-line" replacement) and do the following:

JUST AN EXAMPLE (simple Family Line fact)
Replace:
QUOTE
1 SEX M<return>

With:
QUOTE
1 SEX M<return>
1 EVEN Benson<return>
2 TYPE Family Line<return>
0 _EVDEF Family Line<return>
1 TYPE P<return>
1 TITL Family Line<return>
1 ABBR Family Line<return>
1 SENT <name> descends within the <value> family line.<return>
1 PLAC N<return>
1 DATE N<return>
1 DESC Y<return>
1 PPFX 0

-THEN-
Replace:
QUOTE
1 SEX F<return>

With:
QUOTE
1 SEX F<return>
1 EVEN Benson<return>
2 TYPE Family Line<return>
0 _EVDEF Family Line<return>
1 TYPE P<return>
1 TITL Family Line<return>
1 ABBR Family Line<return>
1 SENT <name> descends within the <value> family line.<return>
1 PLAC N<return>
1 DATE N<return>
1 DESC Y<return>
1 PPFX 0

---
--- "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


#9 Alfred

Alfred

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5734 posts

Posted 05 February 2007 - 12:20 AM

No, NO, NO!

The Event definition only shows up ONCE in a GEDCOM, near the end, along with all of the other event definitions.
AND, certainly not in the middle of the personal data, (You would probaably loose all of the facts for all persons except the sex.)

QUOTE

0 _EVDEF BIRT<return>
1 TYPE P<return>
1 TITL Birth<return>
1 ABBR Birth<return>
1 SENT <name> was born <date> <place>.<return>
1 PLAC Y<return>
1 DATE Y<return>
1 DESC N<return>
1 PPFX 3<return>
0 _EVDEF DEAT<return>
1 TYPE P<return>
1 TITL Death<return>
1 ABBR Death<return>
1 SENT <name> died <value> <date> <place>.<return>
1 PLAC Y<return>
1 DATE Y<return>
1 DESC Y<return>
1 PPFX 0<return>

...

0 _EVDEF Family Line<return>
1 TYPE P<return>
1 TITL Family Line<return>
1 ABBR Family Line<return>
1 SENT <name> descends within the <value> family line.<return>
1 PLAC N<return>
1 DATE N<return>
1 DESC Y<return>
1 PPFX 0

ETC.


You can replace:
1 SEX M<return>

with:
1 SEX M<return>
1 EVEN Benson<return>
2 TYPE Family Line<return>

(and repeat for the females.)
-- (WOOPS! Sorry! that would cause everyone's sex to change so I edited it.-- be sure to replace "F" with "F" and "M" with "M" as Kbens0n says below.))

But you do not need to do anything with the event definition, except, maybe add ONE at the end somewhere, between or after the others, but it should have been exported with the GEDCOM to begin with.
Alfred

#10 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3493 posts

Posted 05 February 2007 - 03:32 AM

SORRY about my last post, above. dry.gif I've edited it to avoid confusion...by referencing Alfred's post that followed.
I did not test my theory... I only culled the info from one of my GEDCOM's... then made a ~bad~ assumption... and recommeded a possible pitfall! ohmy.gif
My apologies, again.
-=Kevin=-

BTW, just to clear up a little "typo":
QUOTE(Alfred @ Feb 5 2007, 01:20 AM) View Post

You can replace:
1 SEX M<return>

with:
1 SEX F<return>
1 EVEN Benson<return>
2 TYPE Family Line<return>

(and repeat for the females.)

SHOULD BE:

You can replace:
1 SEX M<return>

with:
1 SEX M<return>
1 EVEN Benson<return>
2 TYPE Family Line<return>

(and repeat for the females.)

---
--- "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


#11 NoŽl Sant

NoŽl Sant

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 05 February 2007 - 06:38 AM

Wow! I'm going to have to take this slowly.

Thanks very much, everybody,

NoŽl