* TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Importing from another genealogy program? This is the place to ask. Questions about Exporting should go in the Exporting sub-forum of the General Usage forum.
Post Reply
avatar
ricklach
Platinum
Posts: 40
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 13:13
Family Historian: V7
Location: Canada
Contact:

TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by ricklach »

In preparation for the release of FH 7 I have been conducting some experiments on importing my data from TMG into FH6. In general, the import seems to work but I have come across a number of issues that I would like to sort out before I make my decision to move over to FH7 when it released. The first issue has to do with the importation of birth records. In TMG you can create sentence structures for various "roles." Under the birth tag I created a role called "baptism" because a large number of my records (French Canadian) come from church registers that record birth, marriage, and burial "acts" with the focus on the act that was being performed by the church. Those records almost always included reference to a day of birth, marriage and burial, but as a secondary reference. In developing a sentence structure for these events, I used two methods for Baptismal events (marriage only required one event and burials almost always required two events - DOD and burial date). Baptismal events required two entries when the dates of birth and baptism were different but only one when they are the same. In the latter case, I developed a sentence structure to combine both events into a single paragraph. It appears that FH6 when it imports these birth/baptismal events creates a new sentence structure like this: He (She) experienced Birth on (date) (Place), with the latter two items in brackets signifying the variables date and place. This is different than the stock sentence construction in FH6. I have 10s of thousands of that baptismal sentence construction and I am looking for a way to preserve the format from TMG. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might achieve this so I can save untold hours of reformatting when I bring it into FH6. Perhaps an editing of the GEDCOM file might fix this issue? Can you concatenate sentences in FH6?
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by tatewise »

Hopefully, you have studied the how_to:import_from_tmg|> Import from The Master Genealogist (TMG) advice.

I am not quite sure what you are describing.
  1. Standard Birth event (BIRT tag) with a Shared Fact Witness that has the Role of Baptism?
  2. Custom Birth/Baptism event for the two events on the same day?
Please post some snippets of GEDCOM and screenshots of the Facts tab showing the event and its Sentence.

FH has a Tools > Fact Types command very similar to TMG has a Tools > Master Tag Type List.
The Sentence Template for each fact tag is defined therein, but are not included in the direct import.
The Sentence structure you mention sounds like a default used when no user defined Sentence Template exists.
That leads me to think your fact is version 2. above, but am not certain without seeing a GEDCOM snippet.
But if I am correct, there may not even be Tools > Fact Types definition for your custom event.

There is much background advice in how_to:narrative_report_fact_sentence_templates|> Narrative Report Fact Sentence Templates.

Not sure what you mean by concatenate sentences ?
A Sentence Template can certainly have more than one sentence.
It is also feasible (sometimes) to make the sentence for one fact be governed by another fact.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
avatar
DonF
Diamond
Posts: 97
Joined: 07 Dec 2014 00:31
Family Historian: V7
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by DonF »

Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might achieve this so I can save untold hours of reformatting when I bring it into FH6. Perhaps an editing of the GEDCOM file might fix this issue? Can you concatenate sentences in FH6?
There is no sentence concatenation feature in FH6.
My suggestion for your 1st question is to wait for FH7 - my understanding is that it will attempt conversion of TMG sentences to FH forms. This is based solely on what I saw at Rootstech London, so don't rely on this!
I can't see how editing of the FH GEDCOM will achieve anything.
User avatar
dewilkinson
Superstar
Posts: 286
Joined: 04 Nov 2016 19:05
Family Historian: V7
Location: Oundle, Northamptonshire, England
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by dewilkinson »

I moved from TMG to FH about four years ago now and never regretted it. The import was 99% perfect I just needed to use the PlugIns Change Any Fact Tag and Search and Replace for a few things, particularly bespoke Facts, and amending sentences to how I wanted them. The hardest part was getting my head around the different way FH works, once grasped FH became a great product in my eyes.

Best of luck.
David Wilkinson researching Bowtle, Butcher, Edwards, Gillingham, Overett, Ransome, Simpson, and Wilkinson in East Anglia

Deterioration is contagious, and places are destroyed or renovated by the spirit of the people who go to them
avatar
ricklach
Platinum
Posts: 40
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 13:13
Family Historian: V7
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by ricklach »

It has taken some time to carry out some pruning of my TMG database and doing several direct imports into FH in an attempt to understand the process. Let me start with an obvious example - the birth fact. Screen shot one is a view of the main screen for an individual - notice that there is no birth entry. Screenshot two is of the Facts tab with the birth entry highlighted - you will notice that there is a birth fact and the rather odd sentence structure. This pattern is in everyone of my birth records. Can anyone tell me what has happened during the import and how to correct this? I know that "age" does not apply in this fact (with a few exceptions), and I was expecting to see the age column filled in for other facts. I expected this was going to be a calculated field based on the birth date - have I missed something?
Attachments
Screen shot two
Screen shot two
Screenshot 2020-02-04 14.13.12.png (74.67 KiB) Viewed 9697 times
Screen shot 0ne
Screen shot 0ne
Screenshot 2020-02-04 14.12.26.png (58.1 KiB) Viewed 9697 times
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by tatewise »

That is NOT a standard GEDCOM Birth Event with BIRT tag.
If it was it would say Born in ... and not Birth in ..., there would be no Age box, the Sentence would make sense, and it would appear on the Main tab. Also note there are no ages in the Age column, because there is no Birth Date defined on the Main tab.

It is a custom Birth event with an EVEN tag and TYPE Birth tag.
That may be caused by two possibilities.
  1. It really is a custom Birth fact type that you have added to TMG
  2. The standard Birth tag in TMG has its Master Type List entry for GEDCOM set to use EVEN instead of BIRT
Either way, in Tools > Fact Types tick Show Hidden and there will be a Birth Event that is <undefined> alongside the standard Birth Event.
It is very easy to Edit that <undefined> event to inhibit the Age box, correct the Sentence, etc, but it still won't be a standard GEDCOM Birth Event so can never appear on the Main tab in the Born box and any functions related to having a Birth Date won't work.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
avatar
DonF
Diamond
Posts: 97
Joined: 07 Dec 2014 00:31
Family Historian: V7
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by DonF »

I would agree with Mike.
The standard Birth tag in TMG has its GEDCOM form set as BIRT, and such events come across to FH correctly in the direct import process.
Suggest you look in the TMG Master Tag Type list and check the GEDCOM setting for Birth, or whatever tag type you use for Birth events (if you have created your own). Making the GEDCOM setting = BIRT in your tag will fix the import.

BTW, Mike earlier asked what you meant by concatenated sentences. In TMG you can set a tag sentence to be a continuation of a previous tag's sentence. This is useful to avoid repetitious sentences, e.g, instead of -
"He was born on 2 Jan 1911 at Makinak, Ontario, Canada. He was baptized on 5 Feb 1911 at St Saviours Church, Makinak, Ontario, Canada."
you could concatenate the baptism sentence so you get -
"He was born on 2 Jan 1911 at Makinak, Ontario, Canada and baptized on 5 Feb 1911 at St Saviours Church in Makinak."
avatar
ricklach
Platinum
Posts: 40
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 13:13
Family Historian: V7
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by ricklach »

That thought about the birth fact did occur to me after I posted the note. I checked TMG and it was indeed being output as a an Event. I changed it and then re-imported my database. It seems to have fixed the problem. I thank you for your help on that issue. As for the concatenation issue, in TMG you can concatenate two sentences from two facts provided one follows the other by just adding a + sign at the beginning of the second sentence. This snippet from the TMG help file explains the process:
You can now begin a sentence structure with a special code, [+], to cause it to be concatenated (joined) with the previous sentence in a narrative in order to form a single compound sentence.

For instance:

Tag 1 sentence structure: [P] was born <[D]>

Tag 2 sentence structure: [+] and died <[D]>

The resulting sentence would be something like this:

John Smith was born in 1842 and died on 6 September 1900

Note that the second sentence must _start_ with the [+] code. If the [+] code is found at any other position in the sentence, then it is ignored.
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by tatewise »

If it is true that FH V7 will import TMG sentence templates, then maybe that form of concatenation will be supported.

With some advanced Sentence Template functions it is possible to make sentences conditional on multiple facts, but it is quite complex.

Presumably you will now be returning to the baptism roles problem you originally posted on 30th Jan?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
avatar
ricklach
Platinum
Posts: 40
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 13:13
Family Historian: V7
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by ricklach »

Back to the birth and baptismal facts. After successfully importing my TMG project I had a look at the specific birth facts that related to birth and baptism on the same day. Bear in mind that the church records were the official record records for saving souls and so the focus was on the baptismal act, with passing interest on when a child was born (if mentioned at all). However, FH has at its start point the registration of a birth date for everything else to be calculated against. My thought is that I will construct a number of sentence templates that meet my needs and style for the birth event. One style will be a stock birth sentence, a second will be the stock birth sentence, modified by any out of character recordings in the baptismal record (done at the time of recording the event), and a third sentence that I can cut and paste from a sheet of modified code that will meet my requirements for a birth/baptismal event (and other sentence structures that satisfy my own specific requirements). In the birth/baptismal event, I will not add a baptismal event. In the case of separate birth and baptismal events, I will carry on as normal. Does anyone see any issue with that approach before I launch off and try some sample changes. BTW, is there a way to expand the "Sentence:" window at the bottom of the page?
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by tatewise »

No, unfortunately the Sentence box cannot be enlarged.

The how_to:narrative_report_fact_sentence_templates|> Narrative Report Fact Sentence Templates advice may provide some useful ideas.
I imagine that all except the stock Sentence Template will be edited into each specific Birth Sentence box.

It might be possible to automatically choose between some alternative Sentence Template structures conditionally on whether there is a Baptism Event and whether it has the same date as the Birth Event.
The circumstances of a Birth and Baptism on the same day are interesting, and although they will have the same Date would they usually have different Place &/or Address details, and thus need two GEDCOM Facts?
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
avatar
ricklach
Platinum
Posts: 40
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 13:13
Family Historian: V7
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by ricklach »

With respect to the following statement: The circumstances of a Birth and Baptism on the same day are interesting, and although they will have the same Date would they usually have different Place &/or Address details, and thus need two GEDCOM Facts? This is a tricky question to answer. In general the baptismal acts rarely, if ever, indicate where a child is born, just in what parish it is baptized. Practically, we can almost always assume that up to about 1900 (and even later in some areas) all births were carried out at home. The church ruled all aspects of daily life and the parish priest would be well aware of when children were about to be born and would be present at the birth to baptize the child as soon as it was born. If a child was born and no parish priest was available then the child would be given an emergency baptism by a lay person (ondoyé) and later baptized by a priest at which time the baptism was recorded. So it is reasonably safe to say that all children were born at home and more often than not, there was a priest present who performed the baptism and recorded the event. That then became the record of their birth. In brief, all vital statistics were recorded by the church in Québec and a copy of the register was provided to the courts on an annual basis. So, for about 300 years we can assume that the vast majority of births and baptisms happened in the home, some on the day of the birth, some shortly after the birth. Hence the requirement to link the two events together when it happened on the same day.
While on the topic, can anyone tell me how to construct the following: <{=TextIf(%INDI.SEX% = "Male", "His", "Her")} godparents were {role(plural)=godparent}.> to give me the sentence His(or Her) godparents were [names of godparents]. I am trying to learn the syntax of sentences and I have clearly missed something here.
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by tatewise »

Theoretically there is an easier way by using the Sex( ) function:
<{=Sex(%CUR_PRIN%,"His","Her","Their")} godparents were {role(plural)=godparent}.>

BUT unfortunately that will not work.
<angle brackets> evaluate the existence of its {function/code} to decide whether to include or exclude its contents,
e.g. <at {address}> yields at 123 High Road or nothing if no Address.

You cannot have two {function/code} items within one <conditional angle bracket> because then it does not know which one to evaluate. Whichever it chooses the other will be treated as plain text.

That was discussed at length in Death Witness Role - Doctor (17400).

So you have to use <The godparents were {role(plural)=godparent}.>
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by tatewise »

I understand the same day Birth/Baptism scenario and have a suggestion.
Enter both a Birth and a Baptism event and give both the same Date and Place, etc, which reflects what happened using standard GEDCOM Facts and enables all the Birth related features.

The Sentence Templates can be designed to produce just one Sentence for that case, while still producing the two stock Sentences for other Birth and Baptism scenarios where only one exists or their Dates differ.

The Tools > Fact Types command can be used to Edit the Birth and Baptism to set their Sentence Templates as below.

Birth Sentence Template compares BIRT.DATE with BAPM.DATE and if equal says and baptised the same day:

{individual} was born {date} {place} <({age})>{=TextIf( %FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.BAPM.DATE%, " and baptised the same day", "" )}

So it might say He was born on 1 Jan 1900 in Montreal and baptised the same day.

Baptism Sentence Template compares BAPM.DATE with BIRT.DATE and only if unequal yields a stock sentence:

{=TextIf( %FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.BIRT.DATE%, "", Text( Sex(%CUR_PRIN%,"He was","She was","This person was") . " baptised on " . %FACT.DATE% . " in " . %FACT.PLAC% ) )}

So will say nothing, or say He was baptised on 9 Jan 1900 in Montreal.

( It needs a bit more refinement to make the on and in prefixes conditional on existence of Date &/or Place but I have left that out for clarity. )

I know those template expressions look a bit scary, but that is the best FH can do currently.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
avatar
ricklach
Platinum
Posts: 40
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 13:13
Family Historian: V7
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by ricklach »

Thanks Mike, That will work for me and helps with my general education in FH. I will add those to my repertoire. So after some testing with the sentence structure her is what I settled on for birth and baptism on the same date with a priest and witnesses:

{individual} was born {=TextIf( %FACT.DATE% = %CUR_PRIN.BAPM.DATE%, "and baptised the same day", "" )} <in the {address} parish >{date} {place}. < The godparents were {role(plural)=godparent}. ><. The godparent was {role(single)=godparent}. ><The ceremony was conducted by Reverend {role=minister}. ><The ceremony was conducted by Reverend {role=priest}. ><{note}>

And here is the sentence it produced including the addition of at baptism fact: Joseph Marcel Louis Marie Desfossés1 (also known as Marcel Desfossés), son of Philippe Desfossés (1889-1973) and Germaine Delisle (1895-1964), was born and baptised the same day in the Saint-Barthélemy parish on 12 August 1929 in Saint-Barthélemy, D'Autray, Québec, Canada. The godparents were Joseph Charles Farley and Marie Dandormeau. The ceremony was conducted by Reverend D. Hénault.1,2

A similar sentence is produced if the birth and baptismal dates are different with the exception that there are two sentences, one for birth and one for baptism.

If the birth and baptism dates are the same I add the witnesses to the birth fact, if the dates are different, I add the witnesses to the baptism fact. I see some potential to add a bit more info if the godparents are related to the child - I will work on that to see what I can produce.
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by tatewise »

I think you will be unable to add any relationship between the child and a godparent for a number of reasons.

Firstly, as discussed a couple of postings ago you can only have one {func/code} within <angle brackets>.
So you can only add plain text to < The godparent was {role(single)=godparent}.> phrase.
To include a relationship will need a {function} inserted, so that cannot work.

Secondly, the required function is {=Relationship(%CUR_PRIN%,%godparent%TEXT,1)} where %godparent% is something like %FACT._SHAR[1]>% or %FACT._SHAR[2]>%, et seq.
But you don't know which instance has the %FACT._SHAR[n].ROLE% = Godparent nor which godparent witness is which.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
avatar
ricklach
Platinum
Posts: 40
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 13:13
Family Historian: V7
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by ricklach »

After ruminating about this issue for a few hours, I have come to the conclusion that the simplest approach would be to modify the the sentence structure with a simple text note annotation similar to this example:

< {=GetLabelledText(%FACT.NOTE2%,"note1: ")} > modified for the godparents
< {=GetLabelledText(%FACT.NOTE2%,"note2: ")} >Other note or notes that I want to add

which is similar to the way TMG handles multiple note entries.

For example: [[ Note1: His/her godparents were Jean Poutine, a maternal uncle, and his spouse Marie Poutine, an aunt by marriage, both living in Nicolet.
Note2: The child was given an emergency baptism by Michel Gotée. ]]

which would replace the following: < The godparents were {role(plural)=godparent}. ><. The godparent was {role(single)=godparent}. >

How about that type of construct?
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: TMG Import into FH 6.2.7

Post by tatewise »

Yes, you have clearly mastered the FH expression concepts.
The labelled note strategy is a well established and recommended technique.
See how_to:narrative_report_fact_sentence_templates#custom_fact_fields|> Custom Fact Fields.

See also how_to:understanding_expressions|> Understanding Expressions that may give you some more ideas, and summarises all the features that can employ expressions.

Also see Wish List Ref 275 Combined events in narrative reports that harps back to the TMG feature discussed earlier, which you can Vote for.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
Post Reply