* I Quit FH for TMG

The place to chat and put the world to rights
User avatar
mjashby
Superstar
Posts: 418
Joined: 23 Oct 2004 10:45
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Yorkshire

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by mjashby » 17 Apr 2019 09:19

Sorry, but I would argue in the opposite in this area of data management, i.e. It's not necessarily software that imposes unreasonable expectations on users, but possibly a lack of proper consideration of alternatives, and often simpler, approaches.

In your example it could easily be dealt with using a single repository, whether you choose that to be your personal library, the British Library (which in the UK holds copies all published works), or some other choice. Then add a note record recording that local copies may be found/consulted via public libraries, Records Offices etc., using the recorded detail and ISBN included in the citation.

As another example, for me the main Repository for England & Wales Census documentation is recorded The National Archives but I attach a Reference Note to the single Repository explaining that the Census Data/Images may be seen online at numerous commercial sites including.....; and at some Records Offices and Reference Libraries. I'm certainly not going to unnecessarily attach multiple Repositories to every Census reference just for the sake of it.

And just in case you think I am simply anti-TMG, I was a user for more than 6 years and while it certainly had some positives, I always found it to be clunky and tedious to use in comparison with most Windows software. More of a DOS program made to work on Windows than a true Windows program, which of course links directly back to the database software it is still dependent on, i.e. the no longer supported FoxPro, which no matter how Microsoft presented it, was still DBase in a Microsoft overcoat; and I used DBase on on a C/PM machine in the 1980s along with Wordstar and Supercalc.

Mervyn

avatar
Gowermick
Megastar
Posts: 724
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 07:22
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Swansea

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by Gowermick » 17 Apr 2019 11:11

mjashby wrote:I used DBase on on a C/PM machine in the 1980s along with Wordstar and Supercalc.

Mervyn
Now that brings back some happy memories :D .
Mike Loney

Using FH 6.2.7, with CC 6.7.37 Windows 10.0.14393 Build14393, LibreOffice 6.1.4.1(x64), Firefox 67.0.1(64Bit) & Thunderbird 60.7.0
Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 812
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by AdrianBruce » 17 Apr 2019 20:56

DonF wrote:... Adrian's question of why would anyone want to record a book being in more than one repository, when the important thing is that he found it in a particular library, let me give an example. ...
Yes and no. ( ;) )

Yes, because your justification for doing what you suggest is sensible.

No, because that's not actually what the Repository of a Source is for. (Doesn't mean you can't use it for something entirely different - but it does mean that you create a risk because you're cutting across the purpose of the software). I have always felt that designing or using a piece of software for 2 different purposes was a road to ruin. Sooner or later, someone says, "Why are we doing this?" and they let the other bit of functionality wither on the vine.

As I've tried to convey, the classic view of a Source-Record for the 1st edition of "My Life in Kenya" is that it describes the physical copy that you used - the one with the coffee stain on the back cover. It's not meant to describe all the copies of that 1st edition - what might be described as the theoretical or logical book. Listing several different repositories for the 1st edition of "My Life in Kenya" is a cataloguing function, not a genealogy function. The limit of not including cataloguing functions in a genealogy product, is not, I suggest, arbitrary at all but flows naturally from the purpose of what the program is for.

And as Lorna says, many people don't even record the Repository for a published book (I don't) unless it's seriously old and / or rare. This is even OK'd by Elizabeth Shown Mills! Another source of a clash if interchanging data.

As I said, it's not really about what must be done or not done - rather that diverging from the intention carries risks that might turn round and bite you in the posterior. And I can find enough posterior risks in relatives who change names and birth-dates without creating others!
Adrian

avatar
DonF
Diamond
Posts: 85
Joined: 07 Dec 2014 00:31
Family Historian: V6.2
Contact:

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by DonF » 17 Apr 2019 23:41

Fair comment Adrian.
But I'm not suggesting (as others seem to have assumed) that I ALWAYS do what I described. In fact, I hardly do it at all - but I do (usually) do it for books that are in my library. Why? Because others might want to find said book, and I'm not expecting them to knock on my door, wanting to read it.
And like you, I don't list a repository for common, publicly accessible items. Census records are a good example.

My understanding of quoting a Source is to enable others to reference it, to validate your conclusions and having a Repository associated with that gave them a finding aid. Or to quote the TMG Help "A repository record is used to record where a particular source was found."

But to go back to square one, the original question was how TMG structured Citation, Source, Repository and I answered that, pointing out along the way that TMG offered flexibility and no restraints on their connectivity, unlike other programs.
How those facilities are used remains entirely up to the user, and I'd never suggest there is only one 'right way'.

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 812
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by AdrianBruce » 18 Apr 2019 21:37

DonF wrote:... I'd never suggest there is only one 'right way'.
Indeed.
Adrian

User avatar
themoudie
Diamond
Posts: 97
Joined: 30 Mar 2015 17:53
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Scotland

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by themoudie » 30 Apr 2019 22:59

Aye Rick,

Having read your message and then skimmed the consequent replies, I note that you haven't been following the thread and neither could I. :roll:

I quote your closing comments: " At 73, I want to spend my time researching and writing, not figuring out the vagaries and shortfalls of new contenders. There is no comparison between the two programs period! When it comes to meeting my research and writing requirements TMG is still the champion. So it is with some regret that I am abandoning FH and staying with the tried and tested TMG until and unless something closely approximating the power and flexibility of TMG comes along."

I agree with you first sentence. As for the rest, I can only say "Horses for courses!" I hope that you continue to enjoy your hobby for many years to come and wish you good health.

My regards, Bill

User avatar
Rich Scats
Gold
Posts: 16
Joined: 04 Sep 2014 12:46
Family Historian: V6
Location: Bristol

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by Rich Scats » 14 Aug 2019 15:50

I had been using TMG for the best part of 2 decades as part of a One Name study and now use FH
Using TMG I created tags for each individual censuses ie "1851 Census" "1911 Census" "1850 USA Census" etc and now I going through and amending the censuses to more conventional FH facts and at the same time updating people dates and places with information that wasn't readly availiable 10 or 15 years ago.
So there a method of deducing of how many times a particular fact has been used and where?
I'm sure there are still little gems to find try test & use within FH

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16306
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by tatewise » 14 Aug 2019 15:59

So there a method of deducing of how many times a particular fact has been used and where?
Yes, take a look at Fact type Queries and if you need more advice then post in the FH General Usage Forum.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

avatar
E Wilcock
Megastar
Posts: 856
Joined: 11 Oct 2014 07:59
Family Historian: V6.1
Location: London
Contact:

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by E Wilcock » 16 Aug 2019 09:30

I am in my late 70s and moved to fh regardless. I have had endless patient help on this forum and using a text based software has been simpler for me.

I too had dated UK census events. They were standard in the UK edition of TMG. But I had entered the Year in the date field.

I have now put in the full dates, for one Project for 1841, and believe it was through Mike's plug in to search and replace.
As you still have your dated census events, the Plug in itself will allow you to select the event you are looking for.

Because it was the first time I used the plug in I did not allow it to run automatically which mean that I went through hundreds of entries Okaying them by hand. But in future I would do it automatically. Particularly as the plug in allows one to undo the total edit before saving the changes.

If you are doubtful, I would copy the whole project and try it out.

Once it is done one can alter the custom dated fact types to Census, using the plug in Change any fact.

There is one snag.
A TMG census entered as a joint event for husband and wife will have been imported into fh as a family event.
This means one may need to run the search and replace plug in twice, once for individual census events and then for family census events.

The existence of individual and family events in fh remains a mystery to me coming from TMG but one should always bear it in mind.

Mike may want to correct this, but it hasnt been a problem.

avatar
JohnnyCee
Platinum
Posts: 34
Joined: 14 Nov 2016 13:44
Family Historian: V6.2

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by JohnnyCee » 21 Aug 2019 14:00

to correct a misunderstanding, Tag is a less suitable name than Fact.
The GEDCOM 5.5 specification defines a Tag in several places, but mainly Pages 9 & 16.
[SNIP]
Thus a Tag identifies all GEDCOM structures (e.g. INDI, FAM, DATE, PLAC, ADDR, SOUR, NOTE, OBJE, etc) NOT just facts.
Mike,

TMG's use of "Tag" is unrelated to the GEDCOM use of the same word. TMG uses Tag to denote a collection of record types that include Events, Names, and Relationships. In TMG, Tags (events, names, relationships) are used to record most of the assertions for an individual. All of them may have zero or more citations. Citations are linked to a source. Sources are linked to zero or more repositories.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16306
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by tatewise » 21 Aug 2019 14:24

I was commenting on Don's assertion that "TMG uses the GEDCOM term Tag, rather than FH's non-GEDCOM term 'Fact' and justifying the FH use of Fact.
You are confirming that TMG is not using Tag in the context of GEDCOM.
I assert that FH should not use the term Tag instead of Fact because they are no way synonymous.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
jmurphy
Megastar
Posts: 676
Joined: 05 Jun 2007 23:33
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: California, USA
Contact:

Re: I Quit FH for TMG

Post by jmurphy » 21 Aug 2019 17:22

It is my understanding that the Master Source in other programs would consist of the high-level data such as the details for the 1930 US Federal Census (Microcopy publication T626, Fifteenth Census of the United States, 1930, n number of microfilm rolls) which is common to all the census entries, and the detailed sources are for entering individual households. As previously discussed, this ties in to the great "lumpers" vs. "splitters" debate.

DonF wrote:
16 Apr 2019 00:57
.... and I should also have added that a TMG Source can refer to MULTIPLE Repositories - that is a book can be found in multiple libraries.
This obvious real-world situation is not allowed by some packages - Legacy, for example, only allows one Repository per Source, implying every book in the world only has 1 copy stored in 1 library......
I agree with what Adrian posted earlier.

While we can hope that the books we want to use for our research exist in many copies in libraries all over the world, easily discoverable via WorldCat, there is a bit of genealogical 'common sense' that explains the constraints placed on Sources by Legacy FT. The principle we should use, according to Elizabeth Shown Mills, author of Evidence Explained, is to cite what you use. For our own research notes, we should note which copy we used and which repository we were in when we consulted the book.

Why is this necessary?

Copies of books in libraries and repositories are not all the same. For an extreme case: I have technical books with hand-corrections or tipped-in errata sheets provided by the publisher. My copy of the book is not going to be exactly the same book as the one in your library down the street. For a more likely case, consider that someone might consult a scanned copy of a particular library's genealogy book online, and perhaps the person who scanned it accidentally skipped a page. It may not be necessary to cite exactly which copy of a book you used in a published citation in a journal -- that depends on the style of the journal and the editor's preference. But for your research notes, you should know which copy you actually consulted, in case it makes a difference.

A more practical example: I have access to the 'same' record set from multiple places, and the image quality varies widely from one online source to another. So in Family Historian, I might have three or four different multimedia items of the same census page. I will want to keep track of which image came from which place, so I'll need to have different sources for each item and the proper repository for each one.

Post Reply