TMG conversion of UK census custom tags - new user
Posted: 20 Jun 2021 19:34
Good morning again. I have a number of queries, but in the interest of clarity, I plan to address only 1 at a time. My style when asking for assistance is to be as succinct as possible, honing in on just the one important (to me) question. I don't mind how wide ranging any advice is though.
I am seeking advice on converting my custom census tags from TMG.
I have 1 census tag for each UK census year, 1851-1911. Each tag is exactly the same except for the date which I have embedded in the custom sentence. I have 'conditions' that allow for 2 parents, 1 male parent, 1 female parent, 1 child of a specific gender, and more than 1 child. The parent roles are used in the Principal fields, the child roles in the witness field.
I also have a witness role for anybody in the house who is (1) in my database and (2) anything other than a child of the Principal(s). I use the witness memo to record the relationship individually.
My sentence is - [:CR:]In the census taken on the night of 30th March 1851, [SG] was the head of the household <|and [POF] was his wife>. The address was [L]. <[M].> <Their children [RF:with par +] were living with them><His children [RF:with fath +] were living with him><, [M2]>[:CR:]
A sample sentence of a child - [:CR:]In the census taken on the night of 30th March 1851 [SG] was the head of the household <|and [POF] was his wife>. The address was [L]. <[M].> <Their son [RF:with par] was living with them><His son [RF:with fath] was living with him><, [M2]>[:CR:].
Other iterations with minor changes for female and multiple offsrping.
My witness sentence is - [:CR:][W] appeared on the census taken on the night of 30th March 1851, at [L], in the household of [P] <and [PO]><, [WM]><[M0]>[:CR:].
My question is - should I be rewriting my TMG sentences to something that is convertible at the time of import, or should I be doing the import, then rewriting my FH sentences after the fact.. I am not (yet) asking for details on HOW to do this, I just want advice, hopefully from someone who has already worked through a similar issue, on what angle to tackle this from.
As I have a lot of these tags in use, and the data they present within reports is very informative, I don't mind how much effort I have to make to get an acceptable result out of my conversion. I would like to retain in some form or another the 'picture of the family on census night' that I currently get. A simple statement that this person was located 'here' is not enough. I am though, more than happy to accept any rewording of the result.
An example of the output - In the census taken on the night of 30th March 1851, Elizabetj was the wife of the head of the household, William. The address was Freethorpe, Norfolk, England. Their children Henry and Harriett were living with them, along with a 7 week old daughter of a daughter, Eliza Youngs. As she is only 7 weeks it is safe to assume she is Harriet's.
If the answer is that the 'witness' plug in will assist me, could someone point me to any detailed user documentation please.
I have no real preference for either option, except to say I am very familiar with TMG processes, but I clearly see that I need to learn as much about FH as I already know about TMG. This exercise, should it be within FH, will be a great learning opportunity.
Thanks for your attention - Shirley
I am seeking advice on converting my custom census tags from TMG.
I have 1 census tag for each UK census year, 1851-1911. Each tag is exactly the same except for the date which I have embedded in the custom sentence. I have 'conditions' that allow for 2 parents, 1 male parent, 1 female parent, 1 child of a specific gender, and more than 1 child. The parent roles are used in the Principal fields, the child roles in the witness field.
I also have a witness role for anybody in the house who is (1) in my database and (2) anything other than a child of the Principal(s). I use the witness memo to record the relationship individually.
My sentence is - [:CR:]In the census taken on the night of 30th March 1851, [SG] was the head of the household <|and [POF] was his wife>. The address was [L]. <[M].> <Their children [RF:with par +] were living with them><His children [RF:with fath +] were living with him><, [M2]>[:CR:]
A sample sentence of a child - [:CR:]In the census taken on the night of 30th March 1851 [SG] was the head of the household <|and [POF] was his wife>. The address was [L]. <[M].> <Their son [RF:with par] was living with them><His son [RF:with fath] was living with him><, [M2]>[:CR:].
Other iterations with minor changes for female and multiple offsrping.
My witness sentence is - [:CR:][W] appeared on the census taken on the night of 30th March 1851, at [L], in the household of [P] <and [PO]><, [WM]><[M0]>[:CR:].
My question is - should I be rewriting my TMG sentences to something that is convertible at the time of import, or should I be doing the import, then rewriting my FH sentences after the fact.. I am not (yet) asking for details on HOW to do this, I just want advice, hopefully from someone who has already worked through a similar issue, on what angle to tackle this from.
As I have a lot of these tags in use, and the data they present within reports is very informative, I don't mind how much effort I have to make to get an acceptable result out of my conversion. I would like to retain in some form or another the 'picture of the family on census night' that I currently get. A simple statement that this person was located 'here' is not enough. I am though, more than happy to accept any rewording of the result.
An example of the output - In the census taken on the night of 30th March 1851, Elizabetj was the wife of the head of the household, William. The address was Freethorpe, Norfolk, England. Their children Henry and Harriett were living with them, along with a 7 week old daughter of a daughter, Eliza Youngs. As she is only 7 weeks it is safe to assume she is Harriet's.
If the answer is that the 'witness' plug in will assist me, could someone point me to any detailed user documentation please.
I have no real preference for either option, except to say I am very familiar with TMG processes, but I clearly see that I need to learn as much about FH as I already know about TMG. This exercise, should it be within FH, will be a great learning opportunity.
Thanks for your attention - Shirley