All of the source data fields will be in the Gedcom file, but the appearance can be substantially scrambled -- depending on the template. The reason is that all the master source fields are appended together, then all the detail source fields. (Some Sourcewriter templates format the desired Legacy output using intermixed master and detail fields.) So, until the Gedcom standard changes, Legacy could provide a helpful workaround when reducing each Sourcewriter source to a Basic source, during the export to Gedcom, by creating one big detail source and a dummy master. This detail source would have the data properly formatted as if output in a Legacy report.
Ward ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherry/Support" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] SourceWriter: Determining and Defining Types of Sources Non-standard gedcom tags are used all the time by all genealogy programs. I can't think of a single one that includes only fields within the Ged 5.5 standard. If you know of one, please let me know. The important thing is that your sources will be shared with others, no matter whether or not you select the SourceWriter or Basic system in Legacy. And *everything* you enter in SourceWriter *will* be in the gedcom. You can test this yourself. Create a gedcom from the Sample file, selecting just Asa Clark Brown, exporting to the Legacy option and compare what's in the gedcom with what's in the source itself..... The final format which SourceWriter gives us is all that will be lost. None of the data. SourceWriter just makes it easier for users to format sources according to the standard set by Elizabeth Shown Mills in Evidence Explained. Sincerely, Sherry Technical Support Legacy Family Tree On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:49 AM, James Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Sherry/Support > <[email protected]> wrote: >> That's because other programs don't support SourceWriter features. >> It's not defined in the gedcom standards. > > I respectfully disagree with this phrasing. The statements I would > agree are factual, but I disagree with the point of view. The way I > look at it is that Source Writer does/did not appreciate/accommodate > the GEDCOM standard when it was developed. Like it or not, GEDCOM is > still a widely used method of sharing ones data, and the mistake that > was made was that the developers of Source Writer seemed to ignore it. > As an example, there is no way to upload a Legacy file to > Ancestry.com. It accepts GEDCOM only. > >> However, your sources will be exported in the standard Gedcom format >> for sources and they will import just fine into other programs. > > It's true that it exports something, and that something will be > imported just fin. The problem with it, and the reason for my > caution, is that (perhaps arguably) the conversion from Source Writer > to GEDCOM is horrible. The more I share with 3rd parties, the more I > consider dropping Source Writer and going with the Basic system. > > As my caution was directly related to sharing the data via GEDCOM, I > still think it is a fair warning to proceed with caution with Source > Writer. > > -- > James Cook > GED Utils, Ancestry Utils > http://loosestacks.blogspot.com/ Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
