Family Historian User Group

I'm curious about how other genealogy applications might display Research Notes. I did an export of my data to a GEDCOM file and see that each note is a separate entry, such as the abbreviated example below.

What does the "@N29@" preface mean? How might Research Notes be found or displayed in a non-FH7 application?

0 @N29@ NOTE Research Note:
1 CONT Title: Are Hvarf and Varv the same place?
1 CONT Type: Action Plan
1 CONT Date: 18 Jan 2020
1 CONT Status: open
2 DATE 30 MAY 2021
3 TIME 05:01:18

That is not actually a Research Note record which has a different initial line such as:
0 @E42@ _RNOT
Research Note records were introduced in FH v7 and are a non-standard GEDCOM extension.

If you check the Records Window you will see Notes listed separately from Research Notes.
There are also separate options on the Notes tab of some Property Boxes for adding Research Notes.
See FHUG KB Planning and Tracking Your Research for further details.

What you have depicted is a shared Note record that is absolutely standard GEDCOM.
However, you have used an Autotext option for a Research format.
If you don't use any rich text word-processing formatting then it should be handled by most other products.

If you do use rich text then the Export Gedcom File plugin has options to convert to various formats accepted by various products as well as other reformatting that may be needed to the GEDCOM and Media files.

The @N49@ is the Note record unique Record Id. See FHUG KB Record Identifiers.
Just as Individual records have a Record Id such as @I41@ so do every other type of record including Family @F12@, Source @S36@, Media @O52@, etc. Those Record Id (minus the letter prefix) are listed on all but one of the 12 record type tabs in the Records Window. Wherever a record is referenced elsewhere in the GEDCOM its Record Id such as @N49@ is used to point to the record.

It’s worth adding that Research Notes are fundamentally just standard Note Records. Having a separate class of note is convenient, as it enables the Records Window to have independently configured displays for the two types. Most of the “extra” functionality of Research Notes comes from formatting the Records Window appropriately. You could do everything with standard notes, but not as conveniently.

This free format means that it is virtually impossible to export a Research Note in a form that other apps could readily reconstruct the detailed columns displayed in the Records Window. All you would get is relatively unstructured plain text.

An interesting comparison is with the RootsMagic To-do list, which is a very similar concept to that of Research Notes. A FH plugin can import the RM list and recreate the detailed structure in Research Notes, as the format is fixed and cannot be changed by the user. FH notes are essentially free format, so no plugin could cope with all possible user configurations, even if the receiving app had a similar feature.

I'll also add that the columns the records window for Research Notes is created using Labelled Text. You could construct a query using standard Notes filtered on a piece of text that you use to uniquely identify 'reseach notes' , which is what the query constructed by the Research Planner plugin (not yet migrated to V7) does,

The other advantage of using Research Notes is that it's easy to exclude them from reports and exports.

So one decision BEJ has to make is whether to use Research Notes or shared Note records.
Currently, he is using shared Note records with Research Autotext to format them.

His question poses the counter-question: Why would you want Research Notes displayed in a non-FH7 application?

tatewise wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2021 10:32

Currently, he is using shared Note records with Research Autotext to format them.

When I get around to updating Research Planner for V7, that's the approach I intend to use for autotext (rather than maintaining separate autotext as plugin data.) It will work whether somebody chooses to hold their research info as Notes, Tasks or Research Notes. (For V6 I'll leave the existing plugin untouched).

Personally I think the advantages of Reseach Notes coupled with the option in your plugin to convert them to Standard Notes for export (or remove them) means that Research Notes are the best option.

His question poses the counter-question: Why would you want Research Notes displayed in a non-FH7 application?

Perhaps you're collaborating with somebody to carry out research? Or want to explain how you reached a conclusion (or why you haven't reached a conclusion yet!). Or are handing on your research to somebody else to continue?

Interesting to define the boundaries though - philosophically, we should be aiding FH users who want to use other apps to provide complementary functionality, not making it easy for folks to move all their research to a competitor product lock, stock and barrel...

Mark, even if it was possible to police the purposes for which people export, it really isn't any of our business. However, might making it easier to get your information out of FH paradoxically make people more likely to stick with it. (Especially people who have gone through the pain of migrating from another programme before)? Ditto, it might make people more confident in using the new features.

Indeed - one of the key features of FH is its open format. Whatever you enter can always be retrieved with the right tools. You may lose the ability to display it the way you are used to, but you will never lose the raw data.

And Mike T has already gone through the pain of working out sensible export options, so the rest of us don't have to. Win-win.

Thanks, all. Your responses are helpful in several ways. I had forgotten that I had created my own "research notes" in FH6 when I was looking at my GEDCOM export. I am using the FH7 Research Note functionality. In fact, I was surprised to see my "research notes" in the export because I had a hunch that the FH7 Research Notes would not export. All makes sense.

The reason for my question is an attempt to address the perennial issue of variant place names. I thought that I could record name changes for the same location in a note shared by the various place records that correspond to that location. Research Notes are the only shared note option displayed in the Add Note dropdown for places. Is there a way to add shared notes to place records? I have posted that as a new forum question: Is there a way to add shared notes to place records? (19492)