Bafburns

Virginia: Thanks for the pointer. Yes, this sounds like it could possibly be the root of my problem but if it is, it is good news and bad news for me. I currently have no <[M]> variables in any of my sentences. I had split memos in my sentences as a result of the Genbridge migration of my data from Ultimate Family Tree but I subsequently removed them all as part of a restructuring of some of my event tags because I wanted to be able to print event sentences in reports without the memos (some of my memos are VERY long). The removal took a very long time. Does this mean that I now have to add an <[M]> variable to all of my event sentences in order to able to get the embedded citations that are in memos to generate footnotes in reports? If so, and the addtion of the <[M]> variable means that I can't ever print the sentence without the memo on reports, this seems like an unreasonable compromise in a state-of-the-art piece of software like TMG. I guess I would have the same questions about this treatment of embedded citations in TMG as Pete Hill had in his Ancestry TMG_L posting. It sounds like a not very well thought out tradeoff. Are Wholly Genes going to fix this problem in version 8? Thanks for your help, Barrie

I am having problems with the handling of embedded citations in reports genereated from Memos in Event Tags in TMG v.7.04.0000. TMG runs on my desktop under Windows XP Media Centre Edition. I migrated my TMG data from Ultimate Family Tree (UFT) a couple of years ago using the GenBridge conversion utility supplied by Wholly Genes. I am sending this query to Wholly Genes in hopes that you may have heard about this problem before from other former UFT users and might have a solution. Briefly put, my installation of TMG does not treat Embedded Citations the way it treats other Citations in reports. An example may help illustrate the problems I am having. Here is a typical Memo field from my TMG database that includes embedded citations, from a Death Tag: Daniel may have died before 1871, as he was not found in the Census of that year at Bodmin, St. Austell or Truro. In 1983 I conducted an extensive search for a record of his death in the period 1845-1910 in the Indexes of the General Register Office in London but could turn up no entry which seemed to fit clearly with what little I knew about his name and whereabouts. Unfortunately, as I was then unaware of the Byrne surname variant, I did not search under that name. I have even speculated (on the basis of no evidence whatever so far) that Daniel, having come to Cornwall from Ireland, might have done business in his country of birth and possibly returned there after the marriage of his son. The fact that his dependant grand-daughter, Ellen, who was living in his household in 1861, had moved to the household of his married daughter Elizabeth Burn(e) Hawke by 1871 [CIT:]1099:2[:CIT][CIT:]1101:2[:CIT] may be a sign that Daniel had either died or left the Bodmin area. I have speculated that Daniel may have returned to Ireland and died there, but there is no evidence to support this. Note that the numbers in the embedded citations are valid source IDs in my TMG Master List of Sources. Below is the text which TMG generates from this Memo in Individual Narrative and Journal reports (the only two reports I have tested), no matter which options (other than “None”) I select under Options: Sources on the Report Definition screen (i.e., “Footnotes”, “Endnotes”, “Embedded”, “Embedded with parentheses”): Daniel may have died before 1871, as he was not found in the Census of that year at Bodmin, St. Austell or Truro. In 1983 I conducted an extensive search for a record of his death in the period 1845-1910 in the Indexes of the General Register Office in London but could turn up no entry which seemed to fit clearly with what little I knew about his name and whereabouts. Unfortunately, as I was then unaware of the Byrne surname variant, I did not search under that name. I have even speculated (on the basis of no evidence whatever so far) that Daniel, having come to Cornwall from Ireland, might have done business in his country of birth and possibly returned there after the marriage of his son. The fact that his dependant grand-daughter, Ellen, who was living in his household in 1861, had moved to the household of his married daughter Elizabeth Burn(e) Hawke by 1871 (Entry for household of Daniel Burns, Census of England and Wales 1861.) (Entry for household of George Hawke, Census of England and Wales, 1871: Cornwall County, Bodmin, Town of, Lower Bore Street, Enumerator's District 6, (Public Record Office RG 10 2249). Transcribed 17 April 1990 by Barrie A.F. Burns from copy held at LDS Family History Centre, Salt Lake City, Utah (microform reel no. 834,877).) may be a sign that Daniel had either died or left the Bodmin area. I have speculated that Daniel may have returned to Ireland and died there, but there is no evidence to support this. In short, my TMG 7.04.0000 always and only generates the embedded citation references embedded within parentheses, rather than as footnotes which are the much preferred solution. If I select “Footnotes” or “Endnotes” in the Report Definition (Options: Sources) TMG should generate the following text from this Memo (I have invented the footnote numbers below, assuming other footnotes from other Tags would precede this memo in the hypothetical report) but doesn't in my implementation: Daniel may have died before 1871, as he was not found in the Census of that year at Bodmin, St. Austell or Truro. In 1983 I conducted an extensive search for a record of his death in the period 1845-1910 in the Indexes of the General Register Office in London but could turn up no entry which seemed to fit clearly with what little I knew about his name and whereabouts. Unfortunately, as I was then unaware of the Byrne surname variant, I did not search under that name. I have even speculated (on the basis of no evidence whatever so far) that Daniel, having come to Cornwall from Ireland, might have done business in his country of birth and possibly returned there after the marriage of his son. The fact that his dependant grand-daughter, Ellen, who was living in his household in 1861, had moved to the household of his married daughter Elizabeth Burn(e) Hawke by 1871 23, 24 may be a sign that Daniel had either died or left the Bodmin area. I have speculated that Daniel may have returned to Ireland and died there, but there is no evidence to support this. Ultimate Family Tree generated such text with the footnotes if footnotes were requested in reports involving this Tag. I have contacted Terry Riegel (TMG Tips) about this and he cannot replicate the problem on his installation of TMG. He wonders whether my problem might be due to some “artifact” carried over in the data migration from UFT, although he can see no problem in the data structures of my embedded citations and so can see no reason why my TMG is handling embedded citations the way it is. If I have some oddball “artifactual” hangover from UFT, would this problem somehow be corrected in TMG version 8, which I understand will include a completely rewritten Report module? Another question is whether one can somehow automatically convert such embedded citation text in TMG reports to footnotes or endnotes within Microsoft Word after they have been exported there? I haven’t looked into this yet. Can anybody out there help with this?

Dear Michael: Thanks for your creative and helpful suggestion re Split Memos. I guess the underlying problem with my split memos is that the TMG conversion from UFT did not recreate the Tag data structures I had in UFT, resulting in the splt memos instead of putting the various bits of textual data into their own fields, as they were in UFT. I think for now I will resign myself to not being able to fully control Memos in Reports, and will stay with the TMG split memos rather than creating "OptMemo" type tags for every Tag that has a split memo, which would be a lot of work. Perhaps you would be willing to answer another TMG question that I have on a completely unrelated matter: Is there any way to control the placement of footnote numbers in TMG reports? In my TMG database converetd from UFT, footnote numbers for all citations for a Tag, even those embedded in Memo fields, get grouped at the end of the Tag sentence in narrative reports. This can be problematic, as you no longer see which footnote referred to which part of the Tag. In UFT you could footnote individual data elements and these wpould appear foillowing the elements to which they referred, This made for greater clarity in seeing which source related to what. Please forgive me if this query should be treated as a separate Forum Topic. Once again, many thanks for your help. Barrie ---------------------- prompt

As I reported in an earlier Forum posting (“Printing Journal reports without Memos, 3 April, 2009), I am having problems printing reports in TMG v. 7.04 with Memos that are NOT included in the sentence structures for all Tags. My data was successfully converted from Ultimate Family Tree (UFT) using the standard TMG conversion utility. Because of the way my events were structured in UFT, most of my resulting TMG Tags have multiple-part Memos (i.e., M1, M2, M3, etc.). The examples given below illustrate how the Memo fields look in a few typical Tags in my TMG database. As you can see, the last part of a multiple-part Memo contains narrative details providing further, sometimes extensive, information concerning the event described in the Tag. I would like to be able to print TMG reports, especially the Journal Report, excluding these M parts. TMG documentation I have seen indicates that one could do this by first removing the applicable “narrative” M-part from the Tag sentence and then controlling the inclusion of this data in the report by clicking either “None” (exclude this data) or “Embedded” (include the data) on the Memo Tab under Options on the Report Definition Screen. I have tried doing this but I cannot get the Memo parts removed from the sentences to appear in the report, when “Embedded” is clicked on the Memo tab in Report Options. Is there something wrong with the structure of my Tags? Or, do I have to resign myself to leaving these Memo parts in my Tag sentences and so not being able to produce Reports excluding them? Barrie Burns Kanata ON, Canada ---------------------------- TMG SAMPLE TAG MEMOS AND SENTENCES The following examples of TMG Tags will illustrate the structure of my TMG data following conversion from Ultimate Family Tree. Note that in these examples I have added Carriage Returns at the front of the sentences. The problem described above still occurred when there were no carriage Returns specified. Birth Tag ||He was born at the family home on Daniel Street. His mother registered the birth on 4 February 1871. His father's occupation was recorded as "Coach Painter Journeyman" on the birth certificate. By a coincidence, his grandson Barrie Albert Frederick Burns was also born on 3 January in 1939. And so was the Rt. Hon. Clement Atlee, Prime Minister of England in 1883. (NOTE: The first M-part is empty in this example because there was no data in the original UFT record for this field. Other Birth records may contain some information in M1.) Sentence Structure (before removing M2 from the sentence) [:CR:][RF:Child] was born <[D]> <[M1]> <[DETAIL]> <[L]>. <[M2]> Christening Tag Methodist||Daniel Burns was absent for this event, as he had by this time emigrated to the United States. Sentence Structure (before removing M2 from the sentence ) [:CR:][P1] was christened <[D]> <[DETAIL]> <[L]>. <[M2].> Census, Customized Tag 1891||Census of Canada||By the 1891 Census, he was listed as a farmer, aged 21, living alone in a 1 storey wooden dwelling with 2 rooms. At this time his stepfather Samuel Meneer and his family were still living in Bayfield, Ontario.[CIT:]972:3[:CIT] The Wellwood news local news column in the Carberry News reported on January 8, 1892 that "Mr. F. D. Burns lost a valuable horse last week." The following week, January 15, 1892, the paper reported that a "Mr. T. D. Burns has gone to Ninga to team." If there was a typo in the name, this too may have been Fred Burns. Sentence Structure (before removing M3 from the sentence) [:CR:][P1] was listed as the head of [PP] household in the <[M1]> <[M2]> <[L]>. <[M3]>

Can Journal reports actually be generated without event Tag Memos other than those appearing in tag sentences? I am running TMG v.7.04. TMG Help says such Memos can be prevented from appearing in the report by selecting the appropriate options in Report Options - i.e., selecting "Custom format" on the General tab, and selecting "None" on the Memos tab. I have followed those instructions but the Memos still appear in the report. Is there something else I should be doing? Barrie

I created in Ultimate Family Tree a number of Custom Record Type for Parish Register entries and have imported these intact to TMG 7 (7.04.0000). In all of these records I have recorded Parish names in a [Parish Name] source element in the following form: Sweffling, Eng (Suffolk) where the name of the Parish is followed by an abbreviation of the country and then the name of the County in parentheses. The data and source templates were imported correctly into my TMG records but when TMG generates the Long and Short Footnotes from Parish Names of this sort, it seems to be interpreting the names as being personal names with a comma in the middle - such as “Smith, John” – and so produces incorrect footnotes as follows: Full Footnote: Eng (Suffolk) Sweffling. Parochial register of Sweffling in the County of Suffolk: Baptisms, 1760-1789: extracts of baptisms relating to the surname Barker and variants. Transcribed by Dr. Joanna Martin, Genealogist and Record Agent from microfiche copy held at Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich, Suffolk, 1985<, [CD]>. (from Template) <[PARISH NAME].>< [iTAL:][REGISTER TITLE_1][:ITAL],>< [REG DATE]:>< [TRANSCR NOTE]>< [REPOSITORY],>< [LOCATION]><, [CD]> Short Footnote: Sweffling, Parochial register of Sweffling in the County of Suffolk: Baptisms, 1760-1789<, [CD]>. (from Template) <[PARISH NAME], ><[iTAL:][REGISTER TITLE_1][:ITAL],>< [REG DATE]><, [CD]> Bibliography: Sweffling, Eng (Suffolk). Parochial register of Sweffling in the County of Suffolk: Baptisms, 1760-1789: extracts of baptisms relating to the surname Barker and variants. Transcribed by Dr. Joanna Martin, Genealogist and Record Agent from microfiche copy held at Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich, Suffolk, 1985. (from Template) <[PARISH NAME].>< [iTAL:][REGISTER TITLE_1][:ITAL],>< [REG DATE]:>< [TRANSCR NOTE]>< [REPOSITORY],>< [LOCATION]> Note that only the Bibliography entry above displays the name of the Parish in what I regard as the correct manner - the form in which it was entered in the source element. When I remove the comma in the Parish Name element, as follows: Sweffling Eng (Suffolk) the problem with the footnotes goes away but leaves a grammatically awkward formulation of the Parish name. More importantly, I really do NOT want to have to change the many dozens of Parish Register entries I have in my TMG database, if at all possible. Is there any other way to get around this problem without changing all of these records? For example, does TMG have element types for institutional or corporate name fields of this type which could accept the comma or other punctuation without altering the footnotes, and is there a way of making use of them without having to retype all of these names? If not, would it be possible to change TMG to deal with this kind of institutional name? Barrie Burns

Is there any way to have the Abbreviation field function as the Short Footnote in a source template? I am preparing to import my data from Ultimate Family Tree to TMG 6. After test imports/cocversions to TMG I have tried editing a couple of the imported source templates to do this but TMG comes back saying "Abbreviation" is an "unrecognized' field, though it appears in every source record created these test conversions. The UFT fields "Abbreviation 1 and "Abbreviation 2" are nicely combined in the import/conversion to form the TMG Abbreviation field. In UFT these abbreviaion fields are used to create short footnotes. Is there any way of tweaking the import setup to make the UFT Abbreviation field a "recognized" field? Thanks Barrie Burns