TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-07 > 1026923096


From: "Gene Stuff" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Exporting Witness Tags
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:29:37 +0000


>From: Bob Velke <>
>
>Gene said:
>>>Of course it's the fault of TMG. WIT2NOTE can do it and UFT can do it by
>>>making everyone connected a principal. Witnesses could also be exported
>>>to GEDCOM from TMG if the developers wanted to allow it.
>
>As others have pointed out, we have had this discussion before and I don't
>think that anything new is going to come of it.

You control whether anything will come of it.

>GEDCOM is not designed to communicate every type of genealogical data.

I never said it was. I only asked that MORE of my data be exported. I only
asked for improvement, not for perfection.

>We limit our GEDCOM export to those data types for which GEDCOM was
>designed and which have a reasonable assurance of being communicated intact
>(i.e., as the researcher entered them).

Then your users should be warned of this before they spend years entering
data in the way that TMG encourages them to (multiple people per tag).
Export of witnesses to GEDCOM could and should be an option. You allow many
options for reports and charts, why not for GEDCOM?

Strangely, that very respect for the
>sanctity of your data is offered by a few as evidence that we "refuse" to
>respect the sanctity of your data.

It is my data, not yours. And you're right, you're not respecting my wishes
to export large valuable parts of it to GEDCOM. By the way I get many
messages off list from people who agree with me, but do not wish to state so
on the list seeing that it's a sensitive issue here. I've also discussed
this in person with many genealogists who are usually shocked that TMG does
not export everyone attached to an event. The usual reaction I get is "then
why would anyone want to use TMG?" My usual response is that I doubt most
users are aware of the issue.

TMG is a good program. I'd much prefer to use it than to write my own.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have at least one VERY SERIOUS flaw and that is
that I can put tons of data in, but I can never get much of it back out
again. Apparently many of your users don't care about this as judged by
their willingness to purchase ver 5 at this time. I care. It's a big issue
for me. Otherwise data entry is just a monumental waste of time. One major
reason I enter genealogical data in to the computer is for the ease of later
sharing it with others.

Again, that argument
>hinges on the completely wrong premise that GEDCOM is _supposed_ to
>transfer everything.

No, I never said GEDCOM should tranfer everything. Only that it could
transfer much much more. You have accused me of mischaracterizing your
position. You are certainly mischaracterizing mine.

>It is really frustrating that GEDCOM isn't designed to do some things. It
>is even more frustrating that so far the alternatives to GEDCOM are few
>(e.g., using programs that support direct transfers, sending reports
>instead of raw data, not transferring those data types, not entering those
>data types in the first place, etc.). We aren't unsympathetic to the issue
>but "I've got 20,000 of them and I really want to transfer them with
>GEDCOM" doesn't change those realities.

Perhaps it doesn't persuade you, but I am the one with the 20,000. That's
my reality. A big draw for TMG is that it is event-based. Why refuse to
deal with that reality? GEDCOM is not going to change, but you certainly
have the power to use GEDCOM more effectively while keeping in mind that the
data structure you created is event-based.

Also, as I believe, even you admit, direct data transfer (i.e. GenBridge)
does not solve the problem. Even if GenBridge is used, there is still the
problem of transfering a single event with multiple people to software that
cannot accomodate this. The reasonable solution is to duplicate the event
for each attached person and to generate text for explanatory information.
Why is that unreasonable? To blame this on GEDCOM is to obfuscate the
issue. GenBridge and XML are going to have the same problem.

You may wish for everyone to use TMG, but the reality right now is that FTM
has the largest market share and is most likely to be used by those I want
to communicate with. The number of software packages that can read GEDCOM
far far exceeds the number that can read TMG files. That's reality.

We publish our file specifications precisely so that
>people can develop utilities like WIT2NOTE and John Cardinal's Utilities
>that manipulate data in ways that exceed our responsibility to preserve
>your data as you entered it.

Your published file specifications are 5 years old and from 2 versions ago.
If I'm going to do my own programming, I might as well create my own program
and forget TMG. I'd rather spend my recreational time doing genealogy but I
will program if it's the only way to preserve my data.

>
>Bob Velke
>Wholly Genes Software
>PS: The LDS has not claimed that they no longer "support" GEDCOM (whatever
>"support" means in this context). They have said that they DO intend to
>continue developing the ways in which it is represented (e.g., XML). They
>have said that they don't intend to change the data types that it
>recognizes (i.e., the data model). That means that GEDCOM is likely to be
>around for a long time but it will never be designed to communicate
>structured witness data.


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

This thread: