TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2000-06 > 0960995360
From: Richard Cleaveland <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Problem with UFT to TMG
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:09:20 -0400
I understand the TMG "between" date capability, but the fact remains that
the UFT free date field is 40 characters long and the TMG field for
irregular dates appears to be about 28 characters. Here are some cases in
my UFT data base and the translated TMG results:
UFT: probably between about 1698 and 1715
TMG: probably between about 1698 a
UFT: probably between 1736 and 1747
TMG: probably between 1736 and 174
UFT: probably between 1768 and 1789
TMG: probably between 1768 and 178
UFT: probably during the early 1850's
TMG: probably during the early 185
Now I agree that it could be argued that my data entry in UFT took unfair
advantage of the UFT capabilities; what I am trying to establish is that
there is some work required in UFT before the transfer. Of course I'm
assuming the 4.0a will not alter the field lengths - I can imagine the
uproar of regular TMG users if their data bases were required to grow on
account of us UFT interlopers.
It should not be too much of a problem for UFTers to scan the event list in
UFT in advance and find those of excessive length and take some corrective
action on those. But it will have to be done.
>At 09:05 PM 6/13/00 -0400, John Cardinal said:
>Richard Cleaveland wrote:
> > Egad, Barbara! As a result of your message I started reviewing all event
> > dates in my UFT data base and doing what I could to shorten them to 28
> > which is what I counted for the TMG date field length.. But then I found
> > "between October 12 and June 27, 1682" and I'm stumped. I have an
> > aversion to abbreviated month names, you see. Guess it'll have to go into
> > the text template field. I wonder what it's length limitation is.
> > Of course I see the need for some limitation; data base management systems
> > need some limit on ordinary (non-memo) fields or havoc would reign. But I
> > sure wish the date field - especially since TMG HAS a "between" capability
> > - were a tad longer.
>Actually, Richard, TMG's "between" capability will rescue you in this case.
>I am not familiar with the details of the UFT import, but when TMG records a
>"between" date, it uses 20 characters. For example, "between October 12 and
>June 27, 1682" would be stored as
> Key: RCCYYMMDDSTCCYYMMDDS
> Data: 01682101205168206270
>R: 0=Regular 1=Irregular
>CCYY: century and year
>MMDD: month and day
>S: 0=Not old style, 1=old style
>T: 5 = "between" (1,2,3,4,6, and 7 are other types)
>In reports, the date would print *slightly* differently than your quote:
>"between October 12, 1682 and June 27, 1682".
>So, don't spend time editing your UFT dates yet, especially if the 4.0a
>import modules support between dates properly.
Personal genealogy web page: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cleav/
ROOTS Users Group: http://www.rootsusers.org
|RE: [TMG] Problem with UFT to TMG by Richard Cleaveland <>|