Sentence code for using couple's first names please
|
Ann
I have searched but cannot find how to modify the sentence structure to use the couple's first names only. To clarify, in Rootsmagic it was couple:first, and this would use the couple's first names only in the sentence. I am trying to clean up my imported data. Many thanks
Ann |
|
|
|
Adrian Bruce
Hmm - I am puzzled - I thought it was going to be "{couple:FIRST}" (no quotes, of course) but that isn't recognised. What does work (ish) is "{%CUR_PRIN.NAME[1]:FIRST%} and {%CUR_PRIN2.NAME[1]:FIRST%}" - that's obtaining separately the two names of the couple and qualifying them each. There must be all sorts of worries about how that deals with an unknown second spouse in a known family. Note this construction works for a family event. Not sure why "{couple}" gives both names in full but
"{couple:FIRST}" doesn't give both names limited to the respective firsts - I guess it needs to be programmed in, because {couple} isn't exactly a straight GEDCOM reference and the next step,
"{couple:FIRST}", wasn't programmed. Sorry about that - let's hope that Murphy's Law conspires to make me look ignorant and brings up a better solution. Adrian On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 at 08:26, <ann@...> wrote: I have searched but cannot find how to modify the sentence structure to use the couple's first names only. To clarify, in Rootsmagic it was couple:first, and this would use the couple's first names only in the sentence. I am trying to clean up my imported data. Many thanks |
|
|
|
Ann
It looks as though I will have to add a Residence Family fact and transfer the data to the new fact as the (not easiest) but simplest solution. I hadn't used family facts previously due to the opinions that they were not acceptable to transfer to other programmes. Onwards and upwards along the learning curve.
Thanks, Ann |
|
|
|
Ann, I’m not sure I follow your reasoning. What fact were you using before? It would have to be a Family Fact to allow the {couple} code. Why do you think a custom Residence Family fact will be any easier? I am sure you will have used Family facts before such as Marriage. Mike Tate
|
|
|
|
Ann
Hi Mike
You are quite correct, as looking back at Rootsmagic I had indeed used a family fact in this instance. I had however not usually used this type of fact due to the comments that it was not good policy if you wished to transfer your data to another programme which seems to be verified in this instance. What I had in RM was [Couple:First] lived< [Date]>< [PlaceDetails]>< [Place]> (James and Helen lived between 1919 and 1922..........and this was what I was aiming to achieve here but unfortunately this "Residence(fam) fact" in RM has imported into FH with the sentence output of {couple:First} lived between 1919 and 1922 at........... I have managed to overcome that now by using the FH Residence family fact and copying the data from the RM version of the fact to the FH version. I am finding the syntax of the sentence structure not as intuitive as it was in RM or TMG, however don't get me wrong I am not putting FH down. It has a lot of things that I very much like and am sure that as I progress up the learning curve I will enjoy it even more. I hope this will end up being my last programme! (having originally started with PAF in the late 1970s) I am wondering whether this imported code could be modified by use of a query to avoid having to write a new fact, but I will wait for the upcoming video on queries before I go there. Thanks Ann |
|
|
|
Ann, Are you saying the Rootsmagic sentence for a Residence(fam) event does not import correctly into FH? If so I would raise a support ticket. I have noticed sentencing quirks, reported them and they have been fixed, I'm just not sure if you have totally reverted to individual fact types? FYI, backing away from family events like Residence is a good approach imo, have you looked at the report possibilities of sharing the Residence event? On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, 23:36 , <ann@...> wrote: Hi Mike |
|
|
|
Hi Ann, Your comments raise several points to discuss.
There is a distinction between migrating ‘data’ between programs and migrating ‘customisations’. Your RM ‘Residence (fam)’ fact ‘data’ has migrated perfectly and will migrate to other programs because they use GEDCOM definitions. What is more difficult to migrate is ‘customisations’ such as Sentence Templates because there are no standard definitions. FH does its best to convert RM sentence structures to FH sentence structures but may not be aware of all of them such as [Couple:First]. So, unfortunately, FH produces {couple:First} in which :First invalid and perhaps should be reported to CP.
There is a standard GEDCOM ‘Residence (family)’ fact and it is not clear whether your RM imported data uses that or not. You do not need to create that standard ‘Residence (family)’ fact definition as it already exists. It is not clear what you have copied from the RM version of the fact to the FH version of the fact. Have you used the Tools > Fact Types… dialogue to copy Fact Definition customisations, or are you talking about something else?
Queries cannot be used to modify anything, so they cannot offer a solution. Only Plugins can modify data and sometimes customisations. You mention writing a new fact, but what new fact did you create in this instance? Since only the Sentence Template structure is involved here, just one small change to its customisation was needed to an existing fact definition.
I hope that clarifies some of the points raised. If not then ask again.
Regards, Mike Tate
|
|
|
|
Ann
Thanks Jackson, I think I may stay away from "family" facts at least until I have had the time to investigate how they output.
Ann |
|
|
|
Ann
Thank you for your time Mike. I did not write (create) a new fact but added a new fact using FH's Residence (fam) fact. Sorry for miswording that statement.
Having filled the fields of address and date in the FH version, I then deleted the RM fact. So all is well with the way it is coded i.e.( {date} {%CUR_PRIN.NAME[1]:FIRST%} and {%CUR_PRIN2.NAME[1]:FIRST%} lived at ....) achieving the outcome that I was after of just using the first names of the couple. Regards Ann |
|
|
|
OK Ann, that makes what you did clearer.
I imagine you used the Tools > Fact Types… dialogue to Edit… the FH Residence (family) Attribute definition of its Sentence Template. (Alternatively, you might have edited the Sentence box in the Facts tab where you added the FH fact but that is not a global solution.)
Anyway, whichever change you made could have been made to the RM fact in exactly the same way without copying anything. I only say that to help you understand what is possible in FH.
BTW: If you had a lot of RM facts that needed copying to FH equivalent facts then there is the Change Any Fact Tag plugin to help with that.
Mike Tate
|
|
|
|
Ann
Thanks again Mike. I will investigate the plug in.
Ann |
|
|