- RootsMagic Forums
- → ketchell's Content
There have been 27 items by ketchell (Search limited from 14-April 20)
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.
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!
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.
Editing sources and people is much faster by ID as there is only one match. I wish RM offered the option for ID upfront.
Another key speed data entry feature missing in RM is copy fact. In TMG there is a copy tag feature. I rarely used it before RM. It is essential in RM as shared facts are not advised. I am cleaning out my multiple principals tags in TMG to fit the RM gedcom model. There is no copy fact in RM so I am doing all the editing in TMG. If I was entering my data in RM only, the copy fact function would be a critical time saver.
Do other RM users document that a spouse died as a custom fact that allows a specific sentence?
In TMG, I made the widow a witness to the death fact of his/her spouse. This made it clear when one marriage ended before the next marriage, and grouped the children within each marriage nicely in the main view. RM will transfer these death fact with witness but I will have to reformulate the witness sentence. Since my TMG method is not Gedcom compliant and I don't use widow except as needed for clarification, it is probably a good time to look at a new practice. It does require duplicating the citations, etc.
I am considering a new Widow fact (TMG tag other event named widow). Or is there a better way?
My ultimate report out is GedSite.
Do other RM users document that a spouse died? Did you create a new fact to allow a particular sentence?
I know you are also experienced with SQL utilities. Maybe that is an option for search and replace? Or search and change?
I would like to confirm my assumptions about searching in RM as TMG refugee. I'm cleaning up my sources and looking for search and replace options.
I looked at the Find Everywhere command. Can this be restricted? For example, if I want to search for Ancestry.com only in a source field. Is that possible?
I looked at the Search/Replace command. There is no option to search sources that I see. Is that correct? For instance, is it possible to search for all sources where website=Ancestry.com and replace with Ancestry?
Thanks for your guidance. Debra
Big Wow. Saved a huge amount of time. Instantly. I copy/pasted the script, and Done.
SQLSpy said 653 were changed. Not sure if the multi-authored showed up in this count or not (mangled or not).
I did a TMG source author search for contains "," and had 657 results. I did a search for contains ";" (multi-authored) and it had 51 results.
Will need to do some checking but for a bulk change this was fantastic. Thanks!
I think I found the answer on multi-authored by trying to edit an RM template on books and in the author field it says:
Separate multiple authors with a semicolon, like this: John Doe;Bill Smith;David Jones
Want to confirm this is the correct and best practice before making changes. Thanks.
I am a total novice to SQL. Will try this script as my first. Installing SQLSpy now.
I do have multi-authored sources. Should be able to run a simple report in TMG to ID this small group of sources and do a manual edit in RM, so not worried about the potential mangling for multi-authored.
I wish the RM manual would specify clearly data entry issues like this. The manual also does not say how to enter multiple authors. TMG required a semicolon between each. Do you know the RM requirement?
Re: above about resolution of the author imported from TMG. I discovered that I needed to change the TMG template imported into RM so that AUTHOR is a name field. Then I needed to edit the source template to author:surname in short and author:reverse in biblio. Then everything worked fine. However, that would mean manually re-entering every author in all my sources. Not an pleasant task. I did try after making the changes but not changing the entry (left it Surname, Firstname) and using author:reverse in the footnote and author:surname in the short footnote; and that did not work.
Does RM only work if the author/creator name fields are Firstname, Surname order? And if so, is there any way in TMG before importing or in RM using SQL to make all my Surname, Firstname entries into the RM required format?
Was this ever resolved? I have the same problem except all of my TMG author are entered "Surname, Firstname" without the quotes in TMG. TMG automatically converted this to Firstname Surname as footnote, Surname as short footnote, and Surname, Firstname for bibliography. I tested using the basic book format and a print article template in RM and if I entered the author's name as "Firstname Surname" then RM will do the same thing. With Surname, Firstname all three footnote/short/biblio are exactly as entered Surname, Firstname. I tried using Author:Reverse for footnote and that doesn't work. Next I tried changing my author name to the apparent RM standard "Firstname Surname" and that doesn't work either -- it puts the full Firstname Surname exactly as entered in footnote/short/biblio. I would assume then it has something to do with how RM imported the author's name? TMG standard entry recommendation was Surname, Firstname so not sure how RM imported other than it appears the same.
Any ideas from TMG to RM experts as to why this is imported this way and is there any way to fix it since I would have to change not only the author name in all my sources (a lot) plus my imported TMG templates (which I want to keep) would all have to be changed and since you cannot change a template type in RM, that would mean going outside of RM into SQL to find some kind of fix.
Or maybe I'm missing something?
Just the experts I needed to hear from.
Jim - good to know what was done so I don't beat my head against a wall. Thanks.
Tom - great to know I can use an SQL to move my TMG Citation Memos imported as RM Citations Comments into the "box" above Research notes. I have used the TMG CM's consistently so this will work for me.
Jerry - thanks for the detailed description re: source notes vs citation notes. I read that but didn't absorb it before. I'm a lumper vs. splitter. I don't expect to do many reports except for research use in RM. GedSite will be go to.
Will keep working on best way to "store" the census abstract note in RM that will append it to the citation in Gedsite. It is easier for me to clean up sources/citations in TMG and then import to RM as sources are searchable and the citation reports are already known, and then I'll move things around using SQL.
Looking for advice from RM experts about census citation notes. I've read the forum and many RM experts recommend placing the census enumeration abstract in both the event note and the citation detail research note. Initially this seemed like a lot of copy/pasting, but seeing the value of this approach as I begin changing my census note to more story-like note vs just the abstract. Having the actual abstract in the research note will be very useful in the future.
From current testing it appears RM imports TMG's citation memo note into the RM citation detail text comments rather than the citation detail text research note. I could manually cut/paste each citation one at a time from comment box to research box. But looking for something across the board as I clean up my TMG source/citation data in anticipation of the final transfer.
Is there any way to choose where the TMG citation memo data is imported in RM?
Assuming not, is there any note field in TMG that is imported into RM's research notes? If so I could make a change in TMG before importing into RM.
If there is nothing I can do on the TMG side, is there an SQL query to move citation comments to citation research notes within RM?
Thanks for your advice.
Sorry to hear. Ancestry sync holds little interest to me. Most Ancestry.com trees are undocumented with the exception of easily found documents like census.Thus they hold little value. I guess it must be important to some RM users. Just putting in my opinion.
zhangrau. You are spot on with my problem in using RM for source management.
I come from an academic librarian background and resorted to using a separate bibliographic management software program years ago. First Endnote, and now Zotero. Despite the basic searching provided inside the source list by TMG, there things that TMG did not do well. Essentially genealogy software programs do not provide the flexibility and features that a focused bibliographic management program can. The lack of search in source list window in RM is a real disappointment, as is the lack of use of a source ID and number of times cited that can be sorted within the window. But that is what I'm used to. I'm sure there are better methods that could be incorporated into RM than what TMG offered. I haven't moved my data completely to RM yet so I can use the TMG ability to rename source type and search for sources and easily change type parameters etc. while I'm still cleaning up 30 years of data. I digitized all my paper source material years ago so need the sourceID to link to those images/PDFs.
For the short term, I will continue to duplicate all my sources in Zotero for the searching by any parameter and tagging, categorization by any type I decide (e..g, books, cemeteries, tax lists, whatever), add links to (like web tags) to web sources, add links to my local digitzed/downloaded sources, add transcribed bits and pieces, etc. It probably has something to do with my change to being a lumper as well. I can have one 1850 Census, and link all my individual census page images to this source record. It serves as an index/search engine for my digital files in my genealogy source folders.
The more sources, citations and digital artifacts I collect, this may prove to be even more worthwhile. Like Jerry I download all artifacts (census pages, forum posts, web pages, etc. copyright free books/articles/manuscripts) etc. Source collections change, get bought up, disappear, and 4 years later are no longer accessible --- so downloading insures I have the exact item that I based my citation on even if the item has been "refreshed."
Just my opinion. If it wasn't so daunting I would just start a "do over."
If you have a lot of sources, the current list is problematic. Trying to find a particular source is very time consuming. here is no sort order by say author, sourceID number or any other parameter nor can you search for a word in a title like TMG. TMG certainly didn't cover the need but usually could find a particular source in that same window quickly. Going out of the source list window to find a source is slow and tedious. Search everywhere is slow, moving between windows takes time and screen space. I would still need to remember if I used the exact title or modified master source title to find it in the source list window.
Several years ago I gave up on decent source management in genealogy programs. I come from an academic librarian background and instead used a separate true bibliographic/citation management system. Originally EndNote and now Zotero (free and extremely flexible). Unfortunately this requies a duplication of sources. If I'm going to go outside the source list window to try to find a source then using Zotero is easier except the duplication because the other features of Zotero are very useful (attaching links, documents, media, folder categorization, etc.)
I've found in the RM forum that people have developed source categorization techniques to try to get a handle on this issue. Rather than put that effort into RM, I'll maintain my duplicate source management in Zotero despite the duplication for now.
Something I'm going to really miss as a TMG emigre is the ability to search the title/abbrev title in the source list window. For example, search "grayson" to step through all the titles with the word grayson in them. Many sources about grayson county do not begin with the word grayson county. Or maybe I'm missing something?
Another source list TMG feature I will really miss is that I can sort in the source list window by title, number of times cited, and source ID. I use these a lot and going out to create a report to find/check on specific set of sources is time consuming. These two sorts and the title search function made working with sources more time efficient for me.
Thanks for considering.
I am still refining my TMG to RM import. Is there another TMG emigre who could confirm my assumptions or best transition practice?
It appears that RM imports the TMG source comments into the RM source comments.
It appears that RM does not import the TMG source remarks into the source record.
Is there any TMG source data that transfers to the RM source text field?
Cleaning up my TMG sources before final import.
Apologies if this information is described elsewhere that I haven't found.
I am a TMG emigre and learning the RM features.
In TMG you can search the title for sources containing a particular word. I use this a lot in TMG asthe first word in a source is often not very useful. I don't see that kind of feature. Am I missing something?
If not, a title word search be a very useful feature for the Source List window.