Jump to content
Grimesgang

"BIO" Tag - Does it Exist?

Recommended Posts

I am trying to add a custom tag called "Bio", which would be for a biographical sketch of a person or family, like those found in many books printed in the 1880s by Beers, and have been done by others since.

 

I tried to create one in the 'Other Events' group. It would accept all my sentences and the like, but when it came time to save it, I could not. I just got the message, 'a tag type called "Bio" already exists'. However, when I listed the Master Tag Type list, "Bio" was not on it.

 

Any ideas what I've run into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phil,

 

You've probably thought of this already, and it's just a shot in the dark, but...

 

Is there any chance that you already have a "Bio" tag out there, but as inactive, and maybe your Show Inactive checkbox isn't checked?

 

Mike Daugherty

Frederick, Maryland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Phil,

 

You've probably thought of this already, and it's just a shot in the dark, but...

 

Is there any chance that you already have a "Bio" tag out there, but as inactive, and maybe your Show Inactive checkbox isn't checked?

 

Mike Daugherty

Frederick, Maryland

If you mean the boxes below the list, yes. I checked both the "show LDS" and the "show deactivated" boxes, with no luck. I tried to find a list of forbidden/reserved/sytem words, as it might be on that, but I found no help reference for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you mean the boxes below the list, yes. I checked both the "show LDS" and the "show deactivated" boxes, with no luck. I tried to find a list of forbidden/reserved/sytem words, as it might be on that, but I found no help reference for that.

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if it is reserved - given the special status of relationship tags (-bio). You could use 'biog' or 'biography' - which are accepted. In that case, I'd use the abbreviation 'biog' and stay away from 'bio', even though bio. is accepted.

 

Virginia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I use several of these type books, Perrins, Beers, etc. I set up a separate tag for each. That way in the Person's PV I can see that the text comes from Perrins.

 

THe sentence is: [P] was listed in Perrin's "History of Kentucky." The listing stated: [M].

 

As Lee says, hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because I use several of these type books, Perrins, Beers, etc. I set up a separate tag for each. That way in the Person's PV I can see that the text comes from Perrins.

 

THe sentence is: [P] was listed in Perrin's "History of Kentucky." The listing stated: [M].

 

As Lee says, hope this helps.

That's an interesting way to go about it. I just figured to put it in as a tag with memo and let the sources and endnotes spell it out. From a sentence/conversational POV, I like your way better. Since the books we're talking about here are specially for area and family history, I can see where they would deserve more than just a standard source/endnote.

 

Anyone else handle this type thing in a different way? I find that I get most of my best improvements from the people on this forum, so I'm always open to listen to ideas. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be surprised if it is reserved - given the special status of relationship tags (-bio). You could use 'biog' or 'biography' - which are accepted. In that case, I'd use the abbreviation 'biog' and stay away from 'bio', even though bio. is accepted.

 

Virginia

 

It looks like you may be right. I went into the sample project and tried to add the Bio tag there as well. No dice - same error message. It must be a reserved word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went into the sample project and tried to add the Bio tag there as well. No dice - same error message. It must be a reserved word.

Not exactly, I think. It's actually the name of at tag in the Parent/child relationship group. While it might appear that you have six tags - Father-Bio, Mother-Bio, Parent-Bio, Son-Bio, Daughter-Bio, and Child-Bio - in fact there is only one Bio tag. The prefix (Father, Mother, Son, etc.) is added depending on whose view-point you are looking from (parent or child) and the sex of the other people.

 

While I've not tested, I'm sure any attempt to use any of the other names used for relationships (step, ado, etc) will give the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not exactly, I think. It's actually the name of at tag in the Parent/child relationship group. While it might appear that you have six tags - Father-Bio, Mother-Bio, Parent-Bio, Son-Bio, Daughter-Bio, and Child-Bio - in fact there is only one Bio tag. The prefix (Father, Mother, Son, etc.) is added depending on whose view-point you are looking from (parent or child) and the sex of the other people.

 

While I've not tested, I'm sure any attempt to use any of the other names used for relationships (step, ado, etc) will give the same result.

 

I just tested it with "ado" in my sample project, and got the same error message. It appears you are correct.

 

I guess it just surprises me that "Mother-Bio" is not a distinct tag from "Bio". It seems to be that would the equivalent of the tag "1234-567" being the same as "567". Perhaps it is some type of melding of two tags ("Mother" and "Bio"). Since I don't know all the inner workings of TMG, I'll just accept the "limitation" (such as it is, since it's not really limiting me, except in the use of one term), and move on.

 

Here's a surprising twist, though. Just before I finished this post and sent it, I tried another experiment. I tried to add a tag called "Mother" (with no dashed suffix) and it was ACCEPTED. Therefore your explanation of the Bio (or Ado, etc) being the tag and the relationship being a descriptor is correct.

 

So what I've found is:

 

You CAN have both a "Mother-Bio" and "Mother" tag

You CANNOT have both a "Mother-Bio" and a "Bio" tag.

 

Clear as mud. :wacko:

 

Thanks for the input! Just one more thing I've learned about this program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I created the "Biography" tag, by copying the "Note" tag and giving it the new name.

 

This works fine. The sentence consists of the one [M] field.

 

My journal reports print BMDB in the first paragraph (an option under reports,

and then everything else is written in the second para, the Biography field.

This is basically the life story, normally in chronological order, but written in better English than one can get from a list of event sentences, no matter how well constructed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I created the "Biography" tag, by copying the "Note" tag and giving it the new name.

 

This works fine. The sentence consists of the one [M] field.

 

My journal reports print BMDB in the first paragraph (an option under reports,

and then everything else is written in the second para, the Biography field.

This is basically the life story, normally in chronological order, but written in better English than one can get from a list of event sentences, no matter how well constructed.

 

Those of us who imported from UFT had the tag created automatically. It is where the text attached to an individual was imported and is exactly as you describe. I use it as you describe using very few standard tags or custom tags in creating my narratives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My journal reports print BMDB in the first paragraph (an option under reports, and then everything else is written in the second para, the Biography field.

This is basically the life story, normally in chronological order, but written in better English than one can get from a list of event sentences, no matter how well constructed.

I'd have to disagree - you can get exactly the same output from a series of tags. Now if the question is which method is easier to achieve quality output, I'll grant there is room for debate. :)

 

Both methods have their advantages, so which is better depends on what's important to each user.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd have to disagree - you can get exactly the same output from a series of tags. Now if the question is which method is easier to achieve quality output, I'll grant there is room for debate. :)

 

Both methods have their advantages, so which is better depends on what's important to each user.

 

Terry,

The real mess in English comes from three consecutive census tags, such as " He was found in the 1880 census in Chicago. He was found in the 1890 census in Chicago. He was found in the 1900 census in Chicago." I do not print census tag sentences for any of my people because these outputs look so bad. In the biography tag I would write "He was found living in Chicago in the censuses of 1880, 1890 and 1900".

 

How would you handle census tag sentences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Douglas,

You can see examples of my sentences at the lnk in my signature line. Part of having different tags and roles for each census year is that you can get away from the redundancy that you describe. It also helps if you find something else about him during those years.

 

Reading He was found on the 1880 census... He bought 14 acres of land... He was married in 1881...He was found on the 1890 census. He witnessed the birth of his first bon in 1892. He bought 16 acres of land.. He became a widower in 1895... He was listed on the 1900 census sounds a lot more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry,

The real mess in English comes from three consecutive census tags, such as " He was found in the 1880 census in Chicago. He was found in the 1890 census in Chicago. He was found in the 1900 census in Chicago." I do not print census tag sentences for any of my people because these outputs look so bad. In the biography tag I would write "He was found living in Chicago in the censuses of 1880, 1890 and 1900".

 

How would you handle census tag sentences?

I agree that the wording in your example is totally boring. But that's not the wording I get from my census tags. :)

 

I would get something like:

 

He and Mary Smith appeared on the 1880 Federal Census of Chicago, Illinois, at 1234 Morris St., enumerated 3 Jun 1880. Their children Robert, Mary, and George were listed as living with them, as was her mother, Mary Jane Roe. He and Mary Smith appeared on the 1900 Federal Census of Chicago, Illinois, at 459 South Elm, enumerated 11 Jun 1900. Their children George, Louise, and Susan were listed as living with them, as was a 24 year-old servant. He appeared on the 1910 Federal Census of Chicago, Illinois, in the household of Robert P. Jones and Mary Sue Whitacer, his son and his wife.

 

To me that tells a story of what was going on in the family over that period of time (though you may not think the wording is the best possible, but that can be tweeked if you prefer something different.) :)

 

If I wanted output like you show above, I'd put all three census records in a single tag, modifying the sentence as required to give the output you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of witnesses and roles in tags forces the various other parties to the tag to accept the same sort date, thus the tags are pretty much forced to run in chronological or whatever order. Therefore if you wished to compose a paragraph summarizing census data, it could be interupted by another off topic tag in which the subject was a witness. In other words if I sort tags for one person it can affect the order that the tags are arranged for another, if one was a witness in the tags being sorted.

 

I think TMG is awesome in its ability to cross reference all the different people associated with an event, and as such is an excellent research tool. I am not convinced yet for myself that it will write the book the way I want it to read, but the jury is still out on that. I am tempted to distribute all the cross-referencing so it appears on the person view through witness tags, but not have them print. Then I can have all the facts before me (wonderful job, TMG) and compose the prose as I see fit. I may yet give in though, it sounds like a lot of work.

 

Being an "event-based" program, the tags are all associated with events. Other things that that might be more descriptive of a person which might have been learned from books, personal interview or family tradition don't fit the mold as well. However specialized tags such as the biography tag you propose should handle that.

 

My $.02 worth.

Allen C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The use of witnesses and roles in tags forces the various other parties to the tag to accept the same sort date, thus the tags are pretty much forced to run in chronological or whatever order.

You are right, Allen, that having the witnesses use the same sort date as the principals can sometimes be a problem. There have been suggestions to have separate sort dates for each person to solve that, but that feature has not yet appeared. :(

 

In practice, however, I find that to rarely be a serious issue. Generally I can rearrange the tags without witnesses and get the information organized as I prefer.

I am not convinced yet for myself that it will write the book the way I want it to read, but the jury is still out on that.

Truth be told, I don't think it's a good tool to write "the book" either. But, with a little effort, you can write quite reasonable narrative output. I find that my work is definitely "in process" and while it is I want to share it with other researchers and with family. I'm pleased with the quality of the narratives for these purposes. But I think "the book" requires more thoughtful arrangement than just a Journal report can offer. In my early attempts I've started with TMG output then edited heavily in a word processor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×