* Gedcom Export to Legacy FT

[ronk]

I guess this might be considered an FYI as to the default options in the plugin.

With the gedcom export to Legacy FT, noticed within Legacy duplication of many Ind notes. Inspected the gedcom and found the following.

2.jpg (98.84 KiB) Viewed 10604 times

This was using the default for 'other options' tab.

1.jpg (67.79 KiB) Viewed 10604 times

So unchecked the indicated notes option, and the ~5000 duplicate note records disappeared.

Wondering if maybe the default options should be changed for this plugin, or is this a anomaly with my data?

Ron

[tatewise]

Thank you for that feedback Ron.

The Plugin is designed to cope with the problem that Legacy does not support any subsidiary tags within a Note Record, although they probably rarely get used. In theory GEDCOM allows a Note Record to have Custom Id and Source Citations. So the Plugin reproduces the details within the Note itself, and the first such line is its [Record Id] and first part of the Note text. So it is not actually repeating the entire Note, but might look like it if they are only short Notes.

I will have a look at shortening/removing the repeated Note text, and even eliminating it altogether when there are no subsidiary tags.

Yes, unticking that option you identified is a suitable workaround when there are no subsidiary tags in your Note records.

[ronk]

OK, just thought, as supplement to this post, I'd also show what it looks like with the subsidiary notes flag checked after import within Legacy itself. I agree Legacy doesn't know what to do with the sub note records. You can see the sub record ID itself is taken as part of the note and then the duplicated detail also.

3.jpg (51.22 KiB) Viewed 10586 times

BTW, these notes orginally before export FROM Legacy, were in Legacy's individual 'general' and 'research' tab. After import to FH, and export back to Legacy, they've now migrated to the end of the IND notes area, not in the tabbed area. Not a huge item, just a minor annoyance, but if that's the only issue for me, I can live with it.

Ron

[tatewise]

Ron, I suspect when exported from Legacy, the GEDCOM file has nothing to identify which tab the Note records were assigned to. So the round trip cannot preserve that tab assignment. Anyway, once committed to using FH, the Note records will always be unassigned, unless there is some way that perhaps each Note record Custom Id can identify the Legacy tab, but that relies on there being some GEDCOM tags to signal the tab to Legacy. Do you know of any such tags in Legacy GEDCOM?

[ronk]

Mike, The first 3 snips (this reply=the max 3 images) are from the source in Legacy, and the last (next reply) is what appears in the Legacy GEDCOM. It puts parens around the 'research' and 'medical' . But also, in the next message, see the 'HI' and 'MI' codes. Are they Identifiying by the tabs?

01.jpg (36.4 KiB) Viewed 10544 times

02.jpg (25.41 KiB) Viewed 10544 times

03.jpg (39.98 KiB) Viewed 10544 times

[ronk]

The GEDCOM relevant data:

04.jpg (63.67 KiB) Viewed 10544 times

I checked the rest of the Gedcom, and consistently the MI is followed by (Medical):and the text, while HI is followed by (Research): and the text. Legacy is trying to ID it. I suppose FH would handle like TNG, which doesn't recognize it, and puts them in as regular notes. That's OK with me at this point.

Ron

[tatewise]

Formally in GEDCOM the Record Id such as MI5 and HI5 have no meaning and must simply be unique. FH (and probably TNG) will simply allocate their own Record Id.

So if thought worthwhile, it would be feasible for FH users to set the Custom Id of Note records to MI or HI, and the Plugin would use that in creating the Note record Record Id in the exported GEDCOM for Legacy.

[ronk]

Were you saying they're not unique? LegacyFT is prefixing the Individual ID with MI or HI, so they ARE unique. If the FH import cannot do this, then one would have to do it somewhere in FH. I know which notes they are by the leading text (research) or (medical). Perhaps as a learning experience, will take a look at the 'custom id' approach in FH, but wasn't sure where that's done yet. There's only one link for each of those special notes, so assigning the IND ID is one for one. I didn't renumber, so all 3 applications have identical IND ID's, (but not notes or media) which makes exchange between applications feasible.

Thanks for the suggestions!

UPDATE: I tried using the Custom ID (e.g. HI5, HI6,etc) for a few notes. I had no effect on the exported gedcom result, with or without the 'other option' 'move 0 @N' box checked. Seemed to ignore the custom id field.

Ron

[tatewise]

No I did not say they weren't unique, but simply that is the only GEDCOM requirement, and no particular meaning can be attached to the letters.

However, since the numeric part is not unique, FH renumbers those Note records.

My suggestion to use Custom Id was a future possible enhancement - there is nothing in the Plugin now.

Nevertheless, I overlooked that the Note record text can start with (Research): or (Medical): and that could be used by the Plugin to create appropriate Record Id, although it does get surprisingly complicated.

Referring back to the duplicated Note text, one consideration is the Update date/time CHAN tag.
In your samples there seems to be no Update date/time, because none is imported from Legacy, and you have not changed any Note records, so the Update column in FH is empty.
If as an experiment, you change or add a Note record so it has an Update date/time, then Export Gedcom File will include that Changed Date/Time in the exported Note record to Legacy.

Do you know if Legacy supports the CHAN tag Update date/time for Note records?

[ronk]

OK, understood, I think. Since multiple occurrences of , e.g., 'MI5' , or just '5's, FH regards it as duplicated Note ID's and assigns it's own sequenced Note record ID. For now, am putting this on the back burner. Not sure about the CHAN/DATE in LFT. I do appreciate that you checked into this.

I'm fine with how it's handled, as long as not lost, since LFT will now become a secondary, rather than primary, data input application. The LFT tab labelled 'Research' had a special significance to me, with abbreviated 'coding' for what docs the individual has attached which I could see at a glance in one string of characters. It still is quickly found in FH in the Notes tab of the Records Window, and with the plugin 'Where Used' to link to the Individuals. That will suffice for now.

Thanks,

Ron

[ronk]

Something just noticed in the LFT export with Plugin; there were 3000 'ABBR' ZZ Place recs created for my locations. These carry over to Legacy when imported there.

The snapshot is from the editor I use RJ TextEd .BTW...would like to have this excellent application added to your editor resources, but didn't know who to contact. It handles different code apps as well.

1.jpg (157.03 KiB) Viewed 10440 times

[tatewise]

Check the Plugin Help and Advice > Output Formats > (Std) Standard Gedcom 5.5 which is the default unless (LFT) Legacy Family Tree specific rules apply.

Place Records (_PLAC) from FH rarely have an equivalent in other products so:
"Each Place record is converted to a synthesised Source record of type Place Details and all values are retained, including linked Media. ​Wherever possible, the Source record is cited by any associated Place field, or its parent field."

The ZZ identifies all synthetic records.
(It would be Ω omega but the Legacy ANSI coding does not support that.)
ABBR should set the Source Abbreviated Title to FH Place Name.
MEDI should set the Source Type to Place Record.
AUTH should set the Author as FH Place Record Id.

On the Extra Options tab Place Records can be set to Remove entirely.

You can add to fhugdownloads:index|> Downloads and Links yourself via fhugdownloads:add_downloads|> How to Add Downloads and Links. That is how the Knowledge Base grows, by members adding to it. Don't worry if you don't get all the details just right, as any of the Moderators can make corrections.

[tatewise]

Try ATTACHMENTS Export Gedcom File Plugin Version 2.5.2 Date 28 Feb 2016.

If your Note records start with (Research): or (Medical): then when exported to Legacy FT they should adopt the HI or MI Record Id to put those Notes in the appropriate tab.

Also the 'repeated' Note text should either be omitted (if no Update CHAN Date/Time) or at least be significantly truncated.

[ronk]

Thanks for the efforts, Mike.

The Place record removal removed the ZZ items. However, having downloading the new plugin, got the same result with either the box checked or unchecked for placing note record 0~ record into note records. Neither file had any MI or HI characters in the gedcom. Am I missing something in the setup?

1.jpg (129.97 KiB) Viewed 10428 times

1s.jpg (177.57 KiB) Viewed 10428 times

[tatewise]

On the Other Options tab, with Note Record 0... unticked, click Reset these LFT Options bottom right, and try export again.

If that does not work, make a note of any non-default settings, and click Restore Defaults bottom left of Basic Options tab. Reselect any non-default settings, and try export again.

[ronk]

Well, somewhat baffled, but bottom line is that none of the options worked,--within Legacy that is. There the notes still became part of 'general' notes.

I did have one output that had the 'MI' and HI' in it. I believe the very first iteration, with the 0 note box checked,..I think. But Legacy still didn't recognize them. I say baffled, because I've been unable to duplicate that first file later, but it is somewhat moot because that first file didn't work. None of the (Research) notes were in the Research tab. I double checked my Plugin options, not sure what happened.

Have shown a bit of that file. Strangely, the 1), 2), 3)...and CHAN etc blurb only appeared on the first occurance of the (Research) record, I believe.

5.jpg (162.96 KiB) Viewed 10406 times

6.jpg (70.93 KiB) Viewed 10406 times

I think you might wish to not release the 'MI' and 'HI' rendition at this point, and I'm fine to leave the plugin as it was. I did see you unticked the place records option as a default now, and that's fine.

Ron

[tatewise]

Are you sure you used the Reset these LFT Options button on the Other Options tab?
(NOT the Extra Options tab.)

Did you try using the Restore Defaults button on the Basic Options tab?

I notice that in earlier postings the Note Gedcom format is:
0 @HI2@ NOTE
1 CONC (Research):text...
0 @MI3@ NOTE
1 CONC (Medical):text...

Also General Notes use @NI4@ record id.

Is it significant that (Research): and (Medical): follow the CONCatenation tag rather than the NOTE tag?
Perhaps you could edit a Gedcom in that area and see how Legacy FT imports it, both with and without the CONC tag.

The Plugin default for the Place Record option has not changed. You changed that setting and the Plugin remembers it until you click Reset these LFT Options on the Extra Options tab, or click Restore Defaults on the Basic Options tab.

[ronk]

I thought I did as you indicated on the proper tabs, but anything is possible, and will give it another go. Will also see what Legacy does with CONC as well.

Ron

[ronk]

Simply unable to get the MI or HI codes in the gedcom again. Totally confusing. I even re-downloaded 2.5.2 from you link, and retried. Reloaded FH as well, deleted old gecoms, etc.

So, unable to do the test you suggested of inserting CONC's.

One note, assume you noticed the number suffix in of the MI and HI equals the Individual Legacy ID to which that note was assigned, which is why, I think you noted, that FH assigns unique record ID's to the notes.

I think the changed default I meant to refer to was the Place record being unticked by default.

Sorry I couldn't reproduce that first file. Very strange indeed. I was careful to reset appropriate tabs and also restore defaults.

Ron

[tatewise]

Hi Ron, try ATTACHMENTS Export Gedcom File Plugin Version 2.5.3 Date 29 Feb 2016.

Sorry about the problems with Options settings, but I had not quite got the code correct for the LFT Note Record option, with an appropriate adjustment from its earlier setting. This version should adopt the new LFT Note Record rules automatically.

This Plugin version should renumber all Note Records using the formats @NI9@ for General tab, and @HI9@ for Research tab, and @MI9@ for Medical tab.
It also mimics the Legacy Note Record format with NOTE tag on 1st line and CONC tag on 2nd.

If that still does not work, it is probably something in the HEAD record that needs changing, so could you please post the first dozen lines from a Gedcom file exported from Legacy.

[ronk]

Impressed with your dogged persistence in debugging. The output looks really good.

1.jpg (98.57 KiB) Viewed 10342 times

Only thing noticed (like earlier) is that the extra test/data coming out for the first individual with (research) notes. I've got it down to only one now. Initially there were about 14 such items in the gedcom, but since I saw reference to FH 'namelist's I had created in the text, I went back into FH and deleted the few named list I had and re-exported and all but the first one disappeared. Not sure why namelists impact the FH export.

Anyway, great progress you've made.

One further question I noticed a while back: some of my notes have html code surrounding them for bolding, etc., and when I export to TNG from Legacy (or FH) it is retained and looks fine. Legacy gives an option whether to retain html on export, and I tick that box always. But now, when coming back to Legacy, the html code is still there, but it is not interpreted properly. One sees the angle brackets around the text. Any idea how to correct that?

Again, many thanks for what you've accomplished generating output to recreate the Legacy tab contents.

Ron

[tatewise]

Regarding Named Lists and File Root details in the export, you can eliminated them in Extra Options by changing the Named List Entry and File Root options at the top to Remove entirely rather than empty your FH Named Lists and cancel the File Root.

Not sure abot the HTML code problem. I have a free trial copy of Legacy, so might have a look.

[ronk]

OK, unticked the extra options boxes for namedlists and root record. The root output was still there, so created another named list just to make sure they are being removed now, and yes, the named records are gone, but the root item remains. Included a snippet of the FH Export 'rules' showing that the proper settings are there for removing the root data, so not sure on that. No problem for me if that doesn't work.

1.jpg (213.58 KiB) Viewed 10333 times

2.jpg (141.08 KiB) Viewed 10333 times

I shall look at the HTML stuff myself later as well.

Thanks again.

Ron

[tatewise]

Your 1st screenshot confirms No. 8-11 Named List Entry Remove entirely and No. 12 File Root Remove entirely.

Your 2nd screenshot is nothing to do with either of the above.
It shows the FH Note record appended subsidiary fields that Legacy does not support.
In this case the CHANged Date/Time of the Note record itself.
If you inspect that Note record in FH Records Window you will see its Updated timestamp.

In general, every Note record edited in FH will have an Updated timestamp.
Only the Note records imported from Legacy and never edited will have no timestamp, and so nothing is appended to the exported Note record for them.

This is the topic we discussed on Friday, and I have truncated the 'repeated' Note text to the first 30 characters, and eliminated it altogether for those that have no timestamp and no other subsidiary fields.

[ronk]

Your 2nd screenshot is nothing to do with either of the above.
It shows the FH Note record appended subsidiary fields that Legacy does not support.
In this case the CHANged Date/Time of the Note record itself.
If you inspect that Note record in FH Records Window you will see its Updated timestamp.

So does this mean as I make Note changes within FH that more of these type subsidiary fields will show up in the LFT export? Forgive me as I don't yet understand the CHAN record processing, but if they show up down the road I will remove them myself from the gedcom before import to LFT.I won't pester you about this anymore.

Ron

p.s. Jane Taubman finally granted me permission for the Knowledgebase logon, ..I was unable to add anything there before today. One question, to add, let's say, a text editor, do I have to use the 'edit' link and format the entry myself, or submit it another way?