* Occupation fact interpreted inconsistently (TMG import)

[NigelBrown]

I have only just noticed that a proportion, it seems perhaps a quarter or a third, of my many hundreds of occupation facts are not being interpreted properly in FH.

This was originally a direct import from TMG (not a GEDCOM) but I don't think this is the problem. They all came over into the Standard (Attribute/Individual) Fact. My TMG tag (fact) was "[D] [PF] [M]" (which is date, person, memo) and I edited the FH occupation to mimic this: "{date} {individual} {note}". The sentence for most of imported occupations reads perfectly OK but many have just the date and individual (or he/she) and do not pick up the rest, even though the note has all the information.

I hope this is clear, but the two attachments should show the discrepancy. Please scroll down the images to see the difference in the Sentence at the bottom of each.

Does anyone have any idea what is causing this (and how to put it right)? At this stage I could re-import.

Thank you.

Nigel Brown

[tatewise]

Occupation is an Attribute fact, which unlike Events, can have a value, and that is shown in both your screenshots at the top against the label Occupation:.

In one case that value is also replicated in the Note: field.

Another possibility is that the text only exists in the Note: field and NOT in the Occupation: value. Are you aware of any? I can explain how to check if necessary.

I assume that in the fields where there is text, that the entire expected text is all present and correct.
You have to move the cursor through the value text to see it all.

I can only assume the details were entered differently in TMG for different Occupation facts, but that does not entirely explain the replication. Do you still have the TMG database to inspect the original entries for the two examples you posted?

There are alternative ways forward.

1. Assuming the Occupation: value is present and correct in all facts, then replace {note} with {value} in the Sentence Template and delete all the redundant Note: fields.
2. Write a Plugin to move every Occupation: value to its Note: field where necessary, and delete every value.
3. Write a Plugin to move every Note: field to its Occupation: value where necessary, and then perform option 1. above.

BTW: You use of Occupation is a little unorthodox. Usually there would be a separate Occupation Attribute for each job, with each fact having its own value, Date and Place, and citing the Source for those details, such as a BMD Certificate or Census.

[NigelBrown]

Mike,

Once again, thank you. Your option 1 to "replace {note} with {value} in the Sentence Template" worked with immediate effect, as far as I can tell, but more checking will confirm.

My use of the Occupation fact, that is, having one per person, may be "a little unorthodox" but in my view produces a more interesting narrative text for reports. I have individuals with up to 10 children (each birth certificate has father's occupation) and say five censuses (with more occupations), plus marriage and death events, and they had the same occupation throughout their working lives. For a report to be interspersed with 17 identical sentences apart from the date, all saying "on such and such date Fred was a coal miner", seems rather bizarre.

However, I would be interested to learn the downsides of my approach.

Thanks again. Nigel

[tatewise]

Yes, in the case where all the documents confirm the same occupation for many years, then one Occupation Attribute with a Date Period citing all the document Sources is perfectly acceptable for all but the absolute purists.

But your second screen-shot in particular has multiple occupations that might benefit from perhaps three Occupation Attribute facts.

BYW: There is a typo for the son's year of birth 1872 that says 1972 by mistake.

[NigelBrown]

Mike,

Thanks for the ideas, which I think I will adopt.

Also for proof-reading!

Nigel

[NickWalker]

For a report to be interspersed with 17 identical sentences apart from the date, all saying "on such and such date Fred was a coal miner", seems rather

I totally support the idea that you can use Family Historian in any way you wish so I'm definitely not trying to change your mind with this post! But I'm someone who would have a series of occupation facts at numerous points through an individuals life as I find it useful to see these snapshots in time. Snapshot is a good word for it as it is rather like taking a photo and capturing a moment in history. In 1881 he was a farmer, in 1882 he was a farmer, in 1885 he was a farmer, etc. I can look at each of these facts and see the evidence for this via the source.

The problem is, as you say, this doesn't look good in a narrative report! However, in my opinion, this isn't a fault in the way the data is recorded, its a limitation of current narrative reports and I don't want to change the way I record my data just to get around a current limitation with reporting. I can't see any reason why a future version of FH narrative reports couldn't look at a person's facts and combine them into one sentence e.g.: 'John was a farmer between 1881 and 1885 and a vet between 1887 and 1900'.