Import from TMG
|
Bob, please look in the Facts tab of the Property Box of the Bride and Groom. Does the Marriage fact imported to FH have a red bullet on the left or a blue bullet? Red bullet means it is a Family fact shared by the couple and held once in the Family record. Blue bullet means it is an Individual fact for just that Individual. This is where more screenshots of everything you are seeing so we can firm what you are saying. FH displays things differently from TMG and so could be misleading until you understand them. Please spend some time studying the Family Historian Sample Project and compare its data with your imported TMG data.
BTW: The Birth/Born fact and Census facts seem to have imported correctly.
|
|
|
|
Janis Rodriguez
Bob, is your custom Marriage tag in the Marriage Group in TMG? I know when I created my first custom tag I unwittingly created it in the Other group instead of the death group. Fortunately I had not gone overboard with custom tags before I learned better. I suggest you post a question on the TMG list to see if this can be fixed, perhaps with John Cardinal’s TMG Utility.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Jan
|
|
|
|
Yes it is in the marriage group (as are the DeathReg and BirthReg in the Death and Birth Tag Groups). However I think I have resolved the problem for now. I've used John Cardinal's TMG Utility to change all my -Reg Tags into the standard tags. I lose some the sentence structures of the special tags, but it seems the import is more successful - I'm just checking a new import into a new FH Project
|
|
|
|
Janis Rodriguez
Glad you found a way!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
|
|
|
Mike
The Marriage “Fact” for the Bride has a blue arrow, the “Fact” for the Groom has a blue dot.    
If it means anything to you here is the equivalent Tag entry Screen in TMG and the Tag Definition summary.
I agree that most Tags have imported correctly (even the standard Marriage tag is OK). Sources and citations seem to be OK. In fact apart from this one issue I’m very happy with the import! As I said in reply to Janis, I’ve sort of resolved the issue my changing all my -Register tags to standard tags in TMG before importing into FH. It’s a shame I lose some of the special sentences etc of the -Register Tag but that’s better than adding a multitude of marriage facts in FH.
But I wait to hear of anything better, it’ll be a few weeks before I take the plunge, make those changes in my full project and import it. Meanwhile, Im quite happy to experiment (I’m fining it a good way to learn the program). BobH |
|
|
|
The Marriage “Fact” for the Bride has a blue arrow, the “Fact” for the Groom has a blue dot.
If it means anything to you here is the equivalent Tag entry Screen in TMG and the Tag Definition summary.
I agree that most Tags have imported correctly (even the standard Marriage tag is OK). Sources and citations seem to be OK. In fact apart from this one issue I’m very happy with the import! As I said in reply to Janis, I’ve sort of resolved the issue my changing all my -Register tags to standard tags in TMG before importing into FH. It’s a shame I lose some of the special sentences etc of the -Register Tag but that’s better than adding a multitude of marriage facts in FH.
But I wait to hear of anything better, it’ll be a few weeks before I take the plunge, make those changes in my full project and import it. Meanwhile, Im quite happy to experiment (I’m fining it a good way to learn the program). BobH
From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Mike Tate
Sent: 12 November 2022 18:59 To: family-historian@groups.io Subject: Re: [family-historian] Import from TMG
Bob, please look in the Facts tab of the Property Box of the Bride and Groom. Does the Marriage fact imported to FH have a red bullet on the left or a blue bullet? Red bullet means it is a Family fact shared by the couple and held once in the Family record. Blue bullet means it is an Individual fact for just that Individual. This is where more screenshots of everything you are seeing so we can firm what you are saying. FH displays things differently from TMG and so could be misleading until you understand them. Please spend some time studying the Family Historian Sample Project and compare its data with your imported TMG data.
BTW: The Birth/Born fact and Census facts seem to have imported correctly.
|
|
|
|
Richard Scantlebury
Bob the blue arrow is an indication that the person is a witness and following an import from TMG it’s probable that she is witnessing the marriage as a bride.
Best wishes and Kind regards Rich Scantlebury In global pursuit of Scantleburys & Skentelberys for a one name study - 3209 http://scantlebury.one-name.net/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/richscats/
|
|
|
|
Bob, I was referring to the standard Marriage fact, which you say has been imported correctly, and if you check will find it has a red bullet. So that is OK.
What you are illustrating is a custom Marr Reg fact, which has been imported as an Individual fact for Charles (blue bullet) and has a shared Fact Witness for the Role of Bride for Lavinia (blue arrow). If Charles and Lavinia are Family partners then that Marr Reg fact should import as a single Family fact. Please confirm that on both their FH Main tabs they are shown as each other’s Spouse. i.e. In TMG terms, Charles is Principal 1 and Lavinia is Principal 2.
|
|
|
|
Mike
Indeed my problem is with my custom Marr Reg fact/tag. As I tried to show in TMG this couple are in a family relationship/partnership, and (independently of that) they are both principals ([P1] & [P2]) in the Marr Reg Tag. On import into FH they are *NOT* shown as each other's spouse. The Tag is imported into one as a "Marr Reg" fact and into the other as a witness to that fact. I note that whilst this is a custom Tag in TMG, it is in the "Marriage Group" of Tags and TMG has assigned it the GEDCOM MARR tag. The attached .jpgs show their two empty Spouse places on their focus windows and their connection to the Marr Reg Fact. Not knowing very much about it I am guessing that the Marr Reg fact is being inported as an individual fact rather than a family fact. |
|
|
|
That explains why the Marr Reg fact does not import as a shared Family fact. Charles and Lavinia are not a Family couple. In TMG, show the Person Details for Charles. Then switch to the Family tab and I suspect he has no Spouse defined. Add Lavinia as his Spouse so they form a Family couple. Then when imported to FH the Marr Reg fact should appear as a shared Family fact.
BTW: Have you searched for all the Marr Reg facts? Do they all import as Individual (blue bullet) facts or are some Family (red bullet) facts? Use the Query > Facts and Events > All Facts query to list them all and click the Fact Type column heading to sort alphabetically. Do any Marr Reg facts have two Fact Owners which are the Family couple?
|
|
|
 The TMG Family View |
|
|
|
There are 43 Marr Reg facts in FH, none of which have second fact owners (Fact Owner 2). Of those 16 do not have partners. 27 do have partners however the Marr Reg fact is not shared. Looking at some of these people with partners there are other reasons for the partner Like for example this Sam Senior who has two marriage Bann facts shared with his partner
 
|
|
|
|
OK, so if Charles and Lavinia are spouses in TMG why don’t they import to FH on the Spouse tab? i.e. What is preventing that Family link from importing to FH? I assume that TMG Family view screenshot is from the same Project that you directly import to FH. Can anyone who has migrated from TMG to FH offer any explanation?
|
|
|
|
I imagine Marr Bann is the standard GEDCOM Family fact just as Marriage is a standard GEDCOM Family fact. They will import to the Family record that links the couple and are shown with a red bullet.
You did not say, but presumably, Hannah Kilner has a blue arrow Fact Witness similar to Lavinia Waddington?
In your earlier screenshot at 7:50 this morning I’ve just noticed it says the Tag Type is ‘MarRegister’. Whereas the facts imported to FH say ‘Marr Reg’, so I wonder why their names are different.
It is possible that I’m wrong and the current TMG direct import to FH does not support such Family facts. In the past, a Tag with 2 Principal Persons as spouses/partners did become a Family fact. There have been discussions with CP about how to map TMG facts into FH facts. Can any TMG migrants to FH throw any light on this issue?
|
|
|
|
Yes, Marr Bann is a standard Tag in TMG with a GEDCOM associated with it of MARB
Yes, Hannah Kilner has a blue arrow Fact Witness The Tag type in TMG is [MarRe gister] which gets imported into FH as [Marr Reg] I have 15 different Marriage Group Tags in TMG (like for example [MarAllegation] or [MarBond]) and 12 of these Tags are "custom". I can't check them all (because not all of them are in this sample project) but it seems that the standard tags are importing correctly (Engagement is coming through as a shared "Engagement" fact) but Custom Tags are not (the First Date Tagg is importing as an unshared (but witnessed) "Engagement1" fact. There are other Tags which are being imported as empty "Note" Facts (and it'll take work to find out what they were in TMG) - is there such a thing as a Family "Note" fact I am quite prepared to edit my TMG project to smooth the import but I can't change all my Marriage Group Tags to a standard Marriage Tag, they won't make sense, and it certainly seems to me that FH does not like a couple to have more than one marriage fact joining them. Is there a list of Family Facts and their GEDCOM code so that I can experiment changing TMG? |
|
|
|
Adrian Bruce
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 18:43, Bob Hunter <rmwhunter@...> wrote: ... Is there a list of Family Facts and their GEDCOM code so that I can experiment changing TMG? The GEDCOM 5.5.1 specification is on https://gedcom.io/specifications/ged551.pdf Page 32 contains the Family_Event_Structure which lists all the standard Family "Facts" and their 4 character codes. The last one, EVEN, is for custom events. Page 49 lists all the family event types in one place - apart from RESI, which has got lost. Detail is provided for each type from p.83 on. Some of the codes are a bit debatable in my view - e.g. MARC (Marriage Contract) and MARS (Marriage Settlement) seem to be very similar. On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 18:43, Bob Hunter <rmwhunter@...> wrote: ... it certainly seems to me that FH does not like a couple to have more than one marriage fact joining them. ... Not sure what you mean here as couples can have marriage banns, marriage, divorce, etc, etc, all of which are different family events. However, if there are multiple MARR facts, I'm not sure. I'm certain that FH can handle the *manual* *input* of two MARR events for the same couple - because that's what my 3G-GF did - he married his second wife twice, with no intervening divorce or whatever. However, being faced with that data when reading a TMG database isn't the same thing, so I'm not saying FH is going to be happy with the equivalent of two MARR events when reading them in the TMG database. Can I just ask something that goes right back to your first mail? In that, when referring to Marr Reg, you asked: "
Do I need to change the Roles in TMG (to say P1 andP2)?" Did you resolve this? Does having P1 and P2 result in a shared fact, generating a Family Record in FH? And does having different roles result in an individual fact in FH with a principal and a witness? Without generating a Family Record in FH? *Can* you (experimentally) change Marr Reg in TMG to have P1 and P2 roles? Or does it forbid it? I do wonder if the FH interface is having problems with the non-standard family facts - as Mike suggested? But it may be a limit of the stored data rather than a software logic limit in processing that data. Apologies if the answers to that lot are earlier in the thread!!! Adrian ,_._,_ |
|
|
|
Thank you, Adrian, for that comprehensive response. In many ways it's been good that my trial import failed, I am learning so much about the program (and indeed about TMG!) as I investigate the failures!
Are you implying that Family Historian will import all the Facts in the GEDCOM standard? That if I were to change one of my Custom Tags in TMG to a Standard GEDCOM "EVEN" it will be imported? I'll give it a go! In one trial, I did change all my custom MarRegister Tags in TMG to MARRiage Tags in one trial import. The Family Relationship between the partners was imported but the fact remained an individual fact with a witness. (I think the problem was that the TMG Tag remained "Custom") I have experimented with the Roles for the Partners in the MarRegister Tag, changing back and forth between [P1] & [P2] and [Bride] & [Groom] with no impact on the import. I'm not quite sure, what you mean about "a limit to the stored data". Are you suggesting that I have too many Custom Tags? If that's the case, perhaps what I need to do is reduce the number by gradually and selectively converting the easiest and least important. Some ideas to work with, thanks. BobH |
|
|
|
Adrian Bruce
On Sun, 13 Nov 2022 at 21:14, Bob Hunter <rmwhunter@...> wrote: Thank you, Adrian, for that comprehensive response. In many ways it's been good that my trial import failed, I am learning so much about the program (and indeed about TMG!) as I investigate the failures! EVEN is the one that I'm unclear about because it's not a single event as such - it's the "container" (for want of a better word) for all the custom event types and it needs things like the user's own name for the custom type to be *somewhere*. So I doubt you could just assign it to EVEN without that name "somewhere". (Otherwise yes, it should import them all)
Oh well... I'm not quite sure, what you mean about "a limit to the stored data". Are you suggesting that I have too many Custom Tags? No - what I meant was that basically, there are 2 components here - the TMG data and the FH extract logic. (Not rocket science, I hope). If TMG doesn't construct the data that FH needs (because obviously TMG has its own rules!), that was what I meant by "a limit to the stored data". Adrian |
|
|
|
Bob, Can you please confirm what TMG version you are using just in case that is an issue.
Now I’ll answer your last question about Standard Family facts. Look in the TMG Tools > Master Tag Type List and select Filter: Marriage and then Divorce All those with Type: Standard happen to be standard GEDCOM Family facts. The only other two are Annulment ANUL and Census CENS. BTW: TMG Type: Standard does NOT mean it is a standard GEDCOM fact but simply a Standard TMG fact. However, in the Filter: Marriage group they just happen to match. Adrian has given the formal GEDCOM reference for standard facts.
The Marr Reg Custom fact should not use the GEDCOM tag MARR which is reserved for the Marriage fact. Usually, all TMG Custom facts should use the GEDCOM tag EVEN. Try changing that to see what happens.
Interestingly, I have found an old TMG Project imported to FH with a Marr Reg Family fact with a red bullet. I am still not convinced that it is synonymous with Tag Type MarRegister. Why would its name change?
Just to be clear, Marriage facts do NOT join Individuals together into a Family couple. It is only the TMG Family tab, Subject to Spouse entries (which becomes the FH Family record link) that joins the couple together. There need not be any Family facts at all. I can think of no reason why multiple Family facts should cause a problem. There can be many Engagement, Marriage, Divorce, etc, facts.
The problem of a multiple Principal Custom fact importing as an Individual fact may have to be referred to Calico Pie.
The FH Note fact is almost certainly derived from the TMG Note tag. I have some of those but as Individual Note facts. There is no such thing as a Family Note fact.
Have you any thoughts about Charles and Lavinia as to why they are spouses in TMG but not in FH?
|
|
|
|
FYI: When the GEDCOM EVEN tag is specified in TMG the Tag Type label is used to specify the custom fact name. That is why TMG custom Tag Type: Marr Reg should import to FH with the custom name Marr Reg. That is why I don’t understand how Tag Type: MarRegister imports as Marr Reg.
Setting Role names such as P, P1, P2 have no meaning to FH at all. I’m sure I said that earlier.
|
|
|
