* Using Lumped Source Splitter v1.2 on RM9 Imported Sources

[Gary_G]

I'm brand new to FH7 and have just ported my data from RM9. I tried Lumped Source Splitter v1.2, but am not having much success. I could use some help.

In RM9 data I have a potential field that could be used as a unique "splitter" title; my local reference string which is a field in the citation detail portion. Unfortunately; the plugin lets me select the field, but it doesn't use it. Is there somewhere that describes the plugin use in a bit more detail and any prerequisites?

Gary_G

[tatewise]

Welcome to the FHUG Gary.

Did you find the Help page associated with the plugin download page that is also opened with the plugin Help button?
i.e. See Help page for more information ~ https://pluginstore.family-historian.co ... e-splitter
That has a Use with Templated Sources section that links to forum thread Import of RM7 Citations (19266).

If after reviewing those topics you still need help then ask again.

[Mark1834]

That’s probably a good prompt to review the plugin to see if it needs refreshing. It was developed originally around FTM data, and subsequently extended to cover RM7 Templated Sources transferred via GEDCOM.

FH now has the much more reliable and comprehensive direct import available, so much of the earlier FHUG discussion is now irrelevant, as it was centred around dealing with the significant flaws in the RM GEDCOM export and how to recover the RM templates that GEDCOM left behind. RM has also moved on, with the new Shared Citation facility of RM8 and RM9.

I’m busy with finishing off some other work at the moment, but I’ll probably spend some time next week updating the plugin help file and reviewing the plugin coding to optimise it for direct import.

[Gary_G]

I think I've figured out what is going "wrong".

I use the RM9 shared reference capability and RM9 templates. So; the splitter likely "thinks" my data is already as split as it can make it.

What I really need is a plugin that takes each unique detailed data section from my RM9 templated citations and appends it to a copy of the corresponding master source, then gives that source a unique name. That is; I need it to create one source per researched image/record.

I don't know if something like that exists or could be created.

[Mark1834]

Gary, can you post an image of a typical citation from your source please (as per the attached example from the Sample Project)? I'll see if it is something that the current plugin can (or should) handle.

Take a screengrab, save as a file, and use the Attachments tab to attach that file to your post with Add files.

[Gary_G]

Mark;

Sorry for being slow to respond. I'm still finding my way in the program.

I've attached a typical citation, as requested.

Regards;
Gary

[Mark1834]

Ok, thanks for that. What I would expect the plugin to do is create a new source (based on the same template) for each unique combination of all the citation fields, and append the specified field (Local Ref) to the title.

I’ve never tried it with a source containing that many fields, or with an RM8/9 Shared Citation, so I’ll experiment on a similar example. It might be a few days, as I’m tied up with non-FH stuff at the moment.

It looks like quite a heavily lumped source structure, so you may find that a reworking of the design may be necessary to get the most out of FH, but that is something that can be done over time. Reworking populated Templated Sources is not easy, but that’s several steps in the future. Concentrate on the basics first, then you can start dipping your toes into more advanced features as your experience and confidence grows.

[tatewise]

Mark, from a completely naive standpoint, would it be feasible to just move all the Citation-specific Metafields to become Source record Metafields?
I realise that needs a modified Source Template to define all those moved Metafields but would be identical to the existing Source Template except for removing the Citation-specific setting for some Metafields.
A new Source record would be created for each 'set' of Citations that had the same Citation-specific Metafield values.

[Mark1834]

Yes, that’s certainly an option. The original plugin was generic sources only, but templates were added due to the forum interest at the time in importing RM via GEDCOM. Now that I’ve got more experience of using templates myself, and RM/GEDCOM issues are behind us, there is good scope for a revamped Version 2. I’ve also got another 18 months experience of using Lua, so there will undoubtedly be parts of the plugin that I would code significantly differently today!

A new version won’t see the light of day for some weeks, but it’s definitely on the pending list.

[Gary_G]

Thanks for the reply, Mark.

Yes; the template has a lot of fields. That is because it was developed to handle just about any type of websites reference and turn out an Evidence Explained style of citation. Some fields are only used for "unusual" websites. The template itself leverages a lot of RootsMagic logic "sentence language" capabilities (I've had a lot of experience in making RootsMagic templates). Oddly; it all still works after import/translation to FH7; with the exception of the limitations posed by FH7 and where fields can be used. Kudos to the FH7 development team!

I agree with what "tatewise" mentioned and reallocating the detailed part of the citation should still allow RM templates to work as designed. That would be great news for other RootsMagic "refugees". :>)

I used to be on The Master Genealogist before being forced to migrate to downgrade to RootsMagic. My use of a local reference field likely gives away my pre-existing preference for splitting; something that the interface design of RoootsMagic made difficult. Despite having a template that looks like I am a Lumper, my database actually only has one instance of each "local reference" item. In FH7, so using it as the source name should give me a decently split version of my sources.

Right now; I'm "playing with the templates on FH7. The overall "language" is almost like a major superset of that in RootsMagic, so with my programming background this could be a bit of fun. In checking out how my trial templates work, I'm getting a fair bit of exposure to how FH7 does things. In short; I'll be happy to see how your updated plugin turns out, but I can keep gainfully "employed" with other things in the meantime.

[Gary_G]

Mark, with respect to:

... you may find that a reworking of the design may be necessary to get the most out of FH, ... Reworking populated Templated Sources is not easy...

Is there somewhere I could read up on this topic? In RootsMagic it was difficult; in fact downright dangerous to impossible. I'd like to get a feel for the FH7 process at a conceptual level and then possibly try it on a test database. Once you have updated your plugin, I'll likely have to make some adjustments to my database. Having this skill could make it a whole lot less work.

[Mark1834]

The program help is a good place to start - check out the section on Sources and Source Templates.

To properly exploit modifying, moving and copying data you are likely to have to dip your toe into basic plugin writing as well. FH plugins are written in Lua, which was new to me when I started using FH, but has a lot of similarities to other common languages such as Python. If you have coding experience, it's not difficult, but it won't be your first priority .

[Gary_G]

Thanks, Mark.
I used to do a lot of programming as a senior software engineer on the space station, but it's been a while...
I'll take a look at the plugin language and see what I can make of it.
As you said; It's not my first priority.

[harold]

Gary

I remember having similar questions a while ago. I bookmarked the following thread at the time. It may have some interesting leads for you to follow.

Combine two templates? (20323)

Harold

[Gary_G]

Harold;

That seems to take care of "transferring" the contained data between two sources based upon identically structured templates. If one moves all the detail fields into the main source, then the target template structure is not the same. I'm not sure if that would work.

Perhaps someone can speak to that assumption on my part?

[hwillk]

I am a new user and don't know if it's OK to just jump in here or ask someplace else.
I am using the Lumped Source Splitter on my RM9 import. How do I find which sources have not been converted? I know the plugin will convert a source that has already been through the convert process. There are too many to be converted at one or two sittings, so I would like to continue with a fresh deck. Also, it would be nice to lock in the fields to add to the name.
Thanks, Henry

[Mark1834]

There is no explicit record of which sources have been converted, but you can use the Records Window to work it out. A source with a large number of citations and an old revision date has probably not been split, but new sources created by the plugin will have many fewer citations and a recent revision date.

I’m not clear why you would want to repeat the process. Is it because three citation level fields are not enough, and you want to split further?

[tatewise]

Henry, see Help page for more information ~ https://pluginstore.family-historian.co ... e-splitter

After a lumped Source is split it gets deleted so it cannot be split again.
I don't think split Sources can be split again because the Citations won't meet the Determining Citation Equivalence criteria.

Perhaps you can use Named Lists to form batches of Sources to be split.
The 'Multiple Sources' Select Records dialogue has a Named Lists tab where the batches can be selected.

[hwillk]

Thank you Mark1834 & Tatewise. I probably did it wrong on my first try, but I had one source that went at least part way through the split because it had the 2 file add-ons (I had requested) sequentially added to the source name 3 times when I tried to convert it again.
I'm off to try your useful tips.