Roles - Amending sentences

[jeffpiper 0]

Is there an easy way to amend all the roles for a particular tag or tags?

 

I want to start using the Witness Memo for census records and need to amend each role sentence to accomodate this.

 

[Terry Reigel 0]

As long as you haven't customized the sentences locally (within the individual tag) you can add to each Role in the Tag Type Definition. Older tags with no entry in the Witness Memo will be uneffected.

 

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

[jeffpiper 0]

As long as you haven't customized the sentences locally (within the individual tag) you can add <[WM]> to each Role in the Tag Type Definition. Older tags with no entry in the Witness Memo will be uneffected.

 

Or am I misunderstanding your question?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably not explained fully. An example of a sentence was

[R:Daughter1] was enumerated as the daughter of [R:Head of Household] in the 1851 census <[L]> <[M2]

 

It will become

 

[R:Daughter1] was enumerated as the daughter of [R:Head of Household] in the 1851 census <[L]>. <[RF:Daughter] was recorded as [WM1],><aged [WM2]>< born in [WM4]><and an occupation of [WM3]>[:CR:]

 

So each sentence will have the same addition apart from the role. I was looking at something like a possible export, mass change and import rather than edit the tag and then the sentence for each role.

I am also creating new roles e.g Son1, Son2, Son3 etc. and would like to set their sentence fairly pain free.

 

I do't use locally customised sentences at all.

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

If the roles are already created, then cut and paste is all that will work. If not, highlight the Son01 role, create Son02, and all you have to do is edit the 02 part.

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

Jeff,

 

With the [CR:] at the end of the sentence, your footnote is going to be on the next line by itself. Best to put the carriage return at the beginning of the sentence.

[jeffpiper 0]

Jeff,

 

With the [CR:] at the end of the sentence, your footnote is going to be on the next line by itself.  Best to put the carriage return at the beginning of the sentence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for that. I don't use footnotes at all at the moment but someday will do so will bear it in mind.

 

[jeffpiper 0]

If the roles are already created, then cut and paste is all that will work. If not, highlight the Son01 role, create Son02, and all you have to do is edit the 02 part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's what I've been doing. I looked at John Cardinal's TMGUtility and export and import sentences to see if there was an easy way to edit/add externally but that doesn't work in the way I want.

 

The hard work comes in amending the events already input. Know what i'm doing over Christmas.

 

[GenerationGoneBy 0]

Just do ALL editing in the Master Tag Type list. That will globally do all your sentences.

[jeffpiper 0]

Just do ALL editing in the Master Tag Type list. That will globally do all your sentences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Trouble is the way I originally recorded the census entry for the family.

Head of household as P1 with a transcription of the entry in the Memo field and each person in the family as a witness with the appropriate role but nothing in the WM field.

So all the information is there but not in the right place.

 

[Les Wylde 0]

Jeff

 

I have similar problems with my earlier entries, made before Witness Memos came along. I was using Roles and reserved <[M1]> for Head, <[M2]> for Wife, <[M3]> for Son, <[M4]>. for Son2 and so on. When WM came along I simply added <[WM].> to each of my role sentences (as Theresa said via the Master Tag List). This seems to allow my "old" entries to continue working as originally intended whilst allowing the "new" entries to work with the new Witness Memos - at least the sentences print as intended in the IN

 

If for some reason I open one of the census Tags with an old entry for an individual, I can update by cutting and pasting to the WM, but I don't necessarily need to.

 

Les

[jeffpiper 0]

Jeff

 

I have similar problems with my earlier entries, made before Witness Memos came along. I was using Roles and reserved <[M1]> for Head, <[M2]> for Wife, <[M3]> for Son, <[M4]>. for Son2 and so on. When WM came along I simply added <[WM].> to each of my role sentences (as Theresa said via the Master Tag List). This seems to allow my "old" entries to continue working as originally intended whilst allowing the "new" entries to work with the new Witness Memos - at least the sentences print as intended in the IN

 

If for some reason I open one of the census Tags with an old entry for an individual, I can update by cutting and pasting to the WM, but I don't necessarily need to.

 

Les

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Les,

I understand now what Terry originally said

 

So as you say for old records then the first part would print as normal and the second would not as the WM is blank.

Then change old, when and as.

I may change the first part of the sentence since there are witnesses with the same role so output is a but peculiar. Just a matter of changing [R:Whatever] to [W].

 

Thanks to all for your input to help think through this change.

 

Now just to change the sentences for the 1891 cenus and input the 60/70 families downloaded off ancestry.

 

[Les Wylde 0]

Jeff

 

Did you mean " Just a matter of changing [R:Whatever] to [W]." You can get some strange output if you do that as the programme will not know which witness you are referring to. That is why I use roles - to differentiate between the various witnesses and to give each their own sentence.

 

So for the 1871 I have:

 

For Head: [RF:Head Of Household] was listed as head of household in the 1871 census <[L]>. <[M1].> <He was recorded, in the 1871 census, with [WO].> (I also have a similar female sentence)

 

and for his wife:[RP:Wife] was listed as the wife of [R:Head Of Household] in the 1871 census <[L]>. <[M2].> <[WM].>

 

I have taken to putting the exclusion marker at the start of each memo field entered (e.g. -Elizabeth was shown as 26 years of age and her birthplace was recorded as Weedon Lois). I can control whether or not the memo contents print by swithching "Show Excluded Data" in the report Miscellaneous Tab as sometimes I want a basic report without the memo details.

 

Enjoy your 60/70 families. I still have loads of census information to enter. My wife can ferret them out faster than I can enter them. I love the way census information paints a picture and confirms so many details. I just wish we had them from the 1700's

 

Les

[jeffpiper 0]

Jeff

 

Did you mean " Just a matter of changing [R:Whatever] to [W]." You can get some strange output if you do that as the programme will not know which witness you are referring to. That is why I use roles - to differentiate between the various witnesses and to give each their own sentence.

 

So for the 1871 I have:

 

For Head: [RF:Head Of Household] was listed as head of household in the 1871 census <[L]>. <[M1].> <He was recorded, in the 1871 census, with [WO].> (I also have a similar female sentence)

 

and for his wife:[RP:Wife] was listed as the wife of [R:Head Of Household] in the 1871 census <[L]>. <[M2].> <[WM].>

 

I have taken to putting the exclusion marker at the start of each memo field entered (e.g. -Elizabeth was shown as 26 years of age and her birthplace was recorded as Weedon Lois). I can control whether or not the memo contents print by swithching "Show Excluded Data" in the report Miscellaneous Tab as sometimes I want a basic report without the memo details.

 

Enjoy your 60/70 families. I still have loads of census information to enter. My wife can ferret them out faster than I can enter them. I love the way census information paints a picture and confirms so many details. I just wish we had them from the 1700's

 

Les

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Les,

My sentences originally had [W]. The daughter sentence for the 1891 census (as yet unchanged) is

[W] was listed as the daughter of [R:Head Of Household] in the 1891 census <[L]>. <[M2].>

When I add her as a witness then I use the role of daughter but if there are more witnesses with that role then the output can be strange. Especially when using SS.

The sentence can read

Jane and Ann was listed as the daughter.....

 

or

They was listed.........

 

Using [W] in the sentence structure gets round the stange English or double names that can occur.

I've had no problem with that so far, especially on my SS site.

 

Ultimately everyone will have their own role Daughter1, 2 etc. so the sentences can go back to [R:Daughter1].

 

The trouble with TMG is that it's just too darn versatile

 

[Les Wylde 0]

Jeff

 

Yes but its versatility makes it fun

 

I must admit I often try out my sentence variations at local level first, checking the output in the IN to see if it reads correctly. I also saw the strange English and lists of witnesses which is why I changed to Rolename1, Rolename2 etc. I haven't used SS yet but I have a vague recollection that Terry Reigel made a comment about the inclusion of [M0] for SS. Perhaps Terry can comment......?

 

Les

[Les Wylde 0]

Jeff

 

Thanks for pointing me in a new direction. I hadn't realised that [W] could be used interchangeably with one of the Other Witness Roles and that [P] could be used interchangeably with the Principal Role. So I don't need to keep typing [R:Rolename] in my sentences. You live and learn

 

Les

[Terry Reigel 0]

I haven't used SS yet  but I have a vague recollection that Terry Reigel made a comment about the inclusion of [M0] for SS. Perhaps Terry can comment......?

Well, yes, if I could figure out what the question is.

I hadn't realised that [W] could be used interchangeably with one of the Other Witness Roles and that [P] could be used interchangeably with the Principal Role. So I don't need to keep typing [R:Rolename] in my sentences.

Well, sort of. You can always use [W] in the sentence for a witness to refer to that witness. It doesn't matter whether that witness is assigned a role other than the default Witness role or not.

 

Similarly, you can use [P] in the sentence for a principal to refer to that principal, whether or not you have assigned a non-default role to that principal.

 

In fact, I highly recommend that practice - see the "Defining Role Sentences" section of my roles tutorial. In some constructs, such as my method of dealing with "first," "second," and "third" marriages, it's much easier than using the role variables.

[jeffpiper 0]

Well, yes, if I could figure out what the question is. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The question started off really as a query for a mass way to edit role sentences. Following various replies and trial and error (sorry experimentation) I realise that it is one by one with lots of Copy and Paste.

 

Well, sort of.    You can always use [W] in the sentence for a witness to refer to that witness. It doesn't matter whether that witness is assigned a role other than the default Witness role or not.

 

Similarly, you can use [P] in the sentence for a principal to refer to that principal, whether or not you have assigned a non-default role to that principal.

 

In fact, I highly recommend that practice - see the "Defining Role Sentences" section of my roles tutorial. In some constructs, such as my method of dealing with "first," "second," and "third" marriages, it's much easier than using the role variables.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The mass editing is to produce sentences for each witness with details from the census entry. This means, for me, a different way of recording the individual people in the household and the changes in sentence are to pick up that data recorded for each person. I have settled on using split WM for the relevant parts.

This will then give me flexibility to amend the sentence structure at a later date if necessary.

 

I forget about all the useful information on your pages Terry. Duly added to My Favorites.

[Les Wylde 0]

Well, yes, if I could figure out what the question is. 

 

 

Well, sort of.    You can always use [W] in the sentence for a witness to refer to that witness. It doesn't matter whether that witness is assigned a role other than the default Witness role or not.

 

Similarly, you can use [P] in the sentence for a principal to refer to that principal, whether or not you have assigned a non-default role to that principal.

 

In fact, I highly recommend that practice - see the "Defining Role Sentences" section of my roles tutorial. In some constructs, such as my method of dealing with "first," "second," and "third" marriages, it's much easier than using the role variables.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think my question is: Do you need to use [M0] (to supress the Tag Memo) in the witness sentences if you are using the WM feature? Before the WM feature I includes [M0]. Whilst I haven't yet used SS, I will in the future. Is there a requirement to include [M0] for SS?

 

 

 

I keep your tutorials bookmarked, they are a tremendous help and I appreciate all the hard work in them. In fact it was reading about the use of [W] and [P] in them and Jeff's post that made me have a play with my sentences. As far as I could tell I could hapily interchange [W] with [R;Rolename] and [P] with [R:Roleprincipal] and get the same output.

 

Les

[Terry Reigel 0]

I think my question is: Do you need to use [M0] (to supress the Tag Memo) in the witness sentences if you are using the WM feature? Before the WM feature I includes [M0]. Whilst I haven't yet used SS, I will in the future. Is there a requirement to include [M0] for SS?

Yes, more or less.

 

First, you only need to add to supress the tag memo it you use one of the option in the report definition to print memos that are not in the sentence. As long as you choose "none" on the Memo tab of report Options, it doesn't matter what you put in the sentence - no extra memos will appear.

 

While I've not found a use for the Memo options, so users do find them useful. Thus, I recommend assuming you will find a use for it later if not currently, and constructing your sentences accordingly.

 

If you use the Memo options, you do need to include in witness sentences when you don't want the main tag memo to appear. The witness memo is treated entirely separately, so th presence of [WM] does not supress the main memo.

 

I've tested this in TMG reports, but not in SS, so can't be entirely sure they work the same. But since it's required in TMG reports, I go ahead and include it.

[Les Wylde 0]

Thanks Terry

 

I shall ensure I have <[M0]> in all my sentences, as I do occasionally use Memo options and in most cases I don't want the main Tag memo to appear in Witness sentences.

 

Les

[Terry Reigel 0]

You're welcome, Les.

 

Terry