I will add one comment on this subject and then move on.... In one of the previous messages was stated
Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch interactively. Painful. The reason you have to send your new cousin / researcher a file, is because whatever online software you exported your Gedcom to did NOT properly import or use all of the data that was in a Legacy created gedcom. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:09 PM, John B. Lisle <leg...@tqsi.com> wrote: > Ward, > > Please see below... > > john. > > At 07:45 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: > > John, > > New GEDCOM: From previous LUG discussions it sounds like it will be years > before a new interchange standard replaces the current GEDCOM standard. > > > Personally, I think it will never happen. There is too much "inventory" of > genealogy that is embedded in Gedcom files and too much software that will > need to be updated in too many countries. > > The folks trying to decide on a new standard are usually too invested in > their own data models. > > Further, you have many vendors developing applications that are reading > other vendors databases directly. TMG's GenBridge technology is just the > well known of these. Many of the vendors who have applications working with > Legacy, read the Legacy file directly. (I do not happen to like this as I > would prefer that Legacy had an API, but that is another subject.) > > > Legacy-RM Interchange: RM is not of any relevance to me. Am I alone in > this regard? > > > > No, but many Legacy users use both products. AND having a good interchange > sells more Legacy as RM users can decide to move up to Legacy. > > > Specific SW Problems: Gavin has illustrated a typical example of the > SourceWriter GEDCOM problem. It has been reported to Legacy Support long > ago. Try this: export a file and import it back into a test Legacy file. > Create a report and look at your citations. All those that used a template > of any complexity at all will have the words and phrases out of order (at > best). This is not anecdotal. There is a clear cause. In attempting to > preserve the master/detail relationship within the GEDCOM, the fields get > shuffled into a different order. My idea of a workaround is to flatten each > citation out into a mostly Detail citation, with the words formatted as in > a normal Legacy report. > > > As I said before, I am not a SW expert. > > I will let someone knowledgeable address this. > > Sorry. > > > Collaborating Online: I would think that exporting a significant chunk of > Legacy data to a web-based tree usually involves the same GEDCOM > interchange, aside from special implementations like FamilySearch Family > Tree. Anyway, if a newly-found cousin/researcher wants to import a > significant portion of my tree, seeing it online won’t help them. I have > to send them a file. Usually they barely know how to operate the software > that they have (often FTM) and are not open to starting over with a new > product just to accommodate me. If their tree is only online (e.g., > Ancestry), then yes, they could grant me access to add my branch > interactively. Painful. > > > I think your vision is too pessimistic. I know from my own work over 10+ > years with Legacy that I can exchange data with minimal concern which I do > on an almost daily basis. > > But this is a much larger subject. Let's tackle it later. > > > Am I making my case, yet, that GEDCOM export is a vital component of any > new feature design? > > > It is a vital component. As is Gedcom Import! of every release. The most > important concept for you to take away is that for the programmers to make > it better, they have to know what folks find as it shortcomings. > > I suspect in the last month before Legacy 8's release, the programmers > spent as much time improving Gedcom import/export as anything else. > > john. > > > Ward > > *From:* John B. Lisle <leg...@tqsi.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 6:55 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital > Events] > > Ward, > > Thanks for your note. > > Please see below... > > john. > > At 05:18 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: > > Jay and John, > > I don’t expect these features/structures to be re-imported intact > into the target system (whether another product or back into Legacy). > > > I do expect, at some time in the future, that Gedcom will have an option > to export SW Sources in a form that they can be re-imported into Legacy > perfectly. Not being the programmer, I do not know what the issues are. > > What I meant by ‘workaround’ is to bend these structures into > the standard GEDCOM format. Shared events become separate events. (I > acknowledge that something would have to be done with ‘roles’.) > > > Agree. At this point, let's walk before we run. > > We already export so that RM can import them perfectly, and we can import > RM's perfectly. > > SourceWriter sources already become Basic, but Legacy should re-order the > information so that the basic source reads OK. > > > As far as I know, SW Sources exported into Gedcom as "Basic" are able to > import into other programs. I know of no specific problems although I am > sure some exist, either based on specific templates or types of included > data. > > --> One problem that has been reported on this list is that note fields on > export in sources are not getting the formatting codes and space code > conversions when they are requested in the export. > > If you know of specific issues, not just anecdotal reports, then you need > to get them to support so that they can be reviewed and included in the bug > list. > > > I said ‘option’ because there might be opportunities for > competing vendors to do a more intelligent interchange. You are saying that > RM and Legacy can interchange shared events via GEDCOM, so there must be a > special way to encode the non-standard structures. > > > The two vendors seem to have "agreed" to adopt the same syntax. This same > syntax has been presented to TNG (Web Publisher) for his future > implementation of Shared Events. (TNG Users... if you want this in TNG > soon, you really have to ask TNG to include it.) > > My wish is for an option that suits an unknown target system as best > possible using only standard GEDCOM. I’ve never run into a cousin that > uses RM. > > > As I said before, I want this too so I can use Shared Events. BUT... I > want to let the implementation settle down as more should be coming. > hopefully soon. ;-) > > > BTW, I sympathize with the testing challenges. I was a software tester and > test manager. > > > You might want to consider offering yourself up for the Test team. ;-) > > Perhaps it is time for Millennia to invest in some automated test cases > for regression testing. > > > Above my pay grade... But possibly a thought moving forward. I introduced > automatic testing to many companies before I retired. I am not current with > what is in the market today, and, if it would fit with Millennia's > development process. > > But my complaint is with the design of new features. If I can’t send > my digital data to a fellow researcher, even in a simplified state, then I > better not use that feature. It is not fully implemented. > > > In my opinion, Legacy has the best balance of advanced customizable > features and "non-proprietary" data of any of the major vendors. > Personally, I try to get my fellow researchers to convert to Legacy so I > can send them a Legacy backup file. And, if they do not want all of the > data, ready to go, they get a Gedcom. > > In 2013, however, collaboration is not really done best by sharing files. > It is done with web/cloud based solutions like TNG, Ancestry Files, Family > Search Tree, etc. > > john. > > > Ward > > *From:* John B. Lisle <leg...@tqsi.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 4:32 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital > Events] > > Ward, > > I really wish to take exception to your "half implemented" comment. > > In the long run, the purpose of Gedcom is to communicate information to > another product. Not all products have all of the same features. > > Shared events - as far as I know - only exist in Legacy, Roots Magic, and > a variation in The Master Genealogist. Currently, the Gedcoms for RM and > Legacy can interchange Shared events perfectly. > > Supposedly, TMG (not TNG!) does not import or export any Gedcoms that > contain anything but Gedcom 5.5.1 standard tags so shared events (They call > them Witnesses) do not escape from their bubble. (I have not played with > TMG in a while, and, recently, I have had TMG users dispute this assertion > but without evidence.) > > What neither RM or Legacy do is to create a Gedcom where Shared events are > converted to regular events for Gedcom export. I do not believe that anyone > has yet determined how this might look, yet. > > --> Note: It is likely that some further enhancements need to be made to > Shared events so this conversion exercise might be done as part of any > enhancements. One of the proposed enhancements is to add role notes onto > the person sharing the event and including in the event sentences the > ability to structure the Role Notes with the Main notes. In a Gedcom export > to regular notes, would you have to add to the notes that the event was > shared from someone else and this person participated as a <role>. > > There are currently several Gedcom options that are clearly designed to > facilitate export to a 3rd party product. (eg, the 2 note conversions, the > Q dates conversion.) When you do those conversion, you do not plan on > re-importing those Gedcoms back into Legacy. > > I can tell you with confidence that these are not all easy changes. Each > change is fraught with challenges with folks with existing family files > that might be damaged. > > Almost every Gedcom export change has to be married to a Gedcom import > change. > > When you start to add in Privacy concerns and partial gedcom export > options, you have very difficult functionality to test. I personally did a > lot of testing in this area and was only able to cover a fraction of all of > the test cases that exist. > > I almost forgot to chat about SourceWriter Sources... again. These are a > Legacy unique features. Each template comes with its own baggage with > respect to Gedcom export. I believe that, when a new Template is created, > the Gedcom export and import may sometimes be needed to be updated to > support it. (I do not claim to be the SW expert among the testers so I do > not look at this.) > > Being able to export a SW Source and then re-importing it into Legacy is > really only an archival issue. The key is can Legacy Gedcom export convert > a SW source into a standard "Basic" source without loss of content that can > be in turn understood by most 3rd party products. > > john. > > > At 03:20 PM 12/5/2013, Ward Walker wrote: > > Jay, > > I think it will be a long time before we have a new interchange standard > that deals with these two features. To my thinking, whenever a software > vendor implements a proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal > data structure), they should implement a workaround for the export of the > resulting data. From day one. Why would I want to send to my distant > cousins a GEDCOM for which I have to apologize due to its garbled sources > or missing events? > > The Legacy import process already has a few workarounds to accommodate > non-standard quirks in GEDCOMs generated by other products. Why not > workarounds for the two export issues? They both sound achievable at a > reasonable cost. > > I’ve already gone down the SourceWriter road, but I can easily > avoid shared events until this happens. They are a nifty feature that is > only half implemented. > > Ward > > *From:* Jay 1FamilyTree <1familytree....@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:23 PM > *To:* LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: [LegacyUG] Shared vital > Events] > > Ward > > When the standards for Gedcom were created way back when, this 'new > feature' wasn't even considered or even imagined. > > Don't blame the software for it, blame the standards that haven't been > updated. > > > Whatever browser you are using to read this email and view the web > certainly isnt following the standards of the HTML 3.0 which was the first > widely used and accepted standards for that category of electronic data. > > > > As Kristy said, the issue is wit the gedcom. > > > Jay > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Ward Walker <wnkwal...@rogers.com> wrote: I > agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the problem with SourceWriter > source citations. I have long advocated that Legacy reformat these into > readable detail citations during the process of converting them into Basic > sources for the GEDCOM export. It seems that Millennia does not believe > that a usable GEDCOM export is important. > Every proprietary new feature should have an option to be mashed into the > primitive GEDCOM standard without loss of data. Ward From: Gavin > Nicholson <gavn...@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 > PM To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared > vital Events > Thanks Kirsty, > > Well I will be putting a change proposal in because it would be simple to > export a copy of the events to each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore > but that is far preferable to not existing at all. Essentially, with this > as it is you can't use shared events and then give your data to anyone who > doesnt use Legacy :-( > > Thanks for making us aware of this one. Gavin... > > From: Kirsty M. Haining [ mailto:khain...@comcast.net<khain...@comcast.net>] > Sent: Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:48 AM To: > LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital > Events > > Gavin, that is exactly what I’m saying. Using a gedcom export, > the data shows up ONLY under the event initiator’s dataset. > > Keep in mind, however, that if you use Legacy to create your reports, > charts, sharing via PDF files, etc. then the shared events should appear > properly within the particular reports (according the report options > you’ve chosen). The issue is with gedcom export.* > > cheers, Kirsty J > > *Or, technically, the issue arises anytime you’re using another > software program to handle a Legacy file, be it gedcom or native FDB > format. > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > 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 > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ 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
