Jump to content
arreaux

Gedcom no export with 2 principals?

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I hope someone out there can confirm the following behavior so I know I'm not losing my mind.

 

When exporting to GEDCOM, events which have 2 principals do not seem to export. For example I have created an event called Land Sale. When I create and event with only 1 principal, the event exports to GEDCOM. The moment I add a second principal, it no longer exports for either prinicipal. Is this expected behavior?

 

If so, any suggestions on how to create directional (to from) events in TMG and have both principals export to GEDCOM?

 

Thanks for your replies!

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GEDCOM provides for only a few two-person tag types. Only those tags recognized in the GEDCOM specs as "family" tags can have two people, and those two people must head a family - that is either be married and/or have children.

 

TMG only exports two-principal tags if the GEDCOM tag type is one of those allowed by the specs. But even if they are exported, they may not import into another program.

 

For a fuller discussion on this sort of exporting issues, see Jim Byram's chapter on Exporting in GTMOOTMG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To elaborate on what Terry said.

 

The Land Sale tag with two principals will export if two conditions are met.

 

1) The P1 and P2 for the tag must have a 'family' relationship in GEDCOM terms since a shared event must export to a GEDCOM family record. Either they must share a Marriage tag or they must be the parents of one or more children.

 

2) The GEDCOM export tag for the Land Sale tag type must be set to 1 EVEN 2 TYPE on the Other tab of the Tag Type Definition screen. This would have been the default setting when the custom Land Sale tag type was created.

 

The family events supported by the GEDCOM 5.5 specs include ANUL (annulment), CENS (census), DIV (divorce), DIVF (divorce filing), ENGA (engagement), MARR (marriage), MARB (marriage bann), MARC (marriage contrace), MARL (marriage license), MARS (marriage settlement), and EVEN (event). EVEN is a catch-all and is the default GEDCOM export tag type for custom tag types in TMG. Custom tag types exported as 1 EVEN 2 TYPE will be imported by any genealogy program that follows the GEDCOM 5.5 specs.

 

As a further example, the TMG Census tag type or a custom census tag type which are set to export as a GEDCOM CENS tag will export as long as they meet the first requirement above (that the P1 and P2 have a 'family' relationship in GEDCOM terms) since CENS is a supported GEDCOM 5.5 family event.

 

More... This came up in Support today.

A GEDCOM family record can exist with only one parent and one or more children. A TMG census tag the father as P1 and a son as P2 and exported as CENS didn't show up in the GEDCOM file. The reason is this tag does not meet the first requirement above. Family events in the GEDCOM family record can only be shared by the individuals designated as HUSB and WIFE in the record. Shared family events cannot be shared by a parent and a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your replies!

 

I understand the issue now.

Because the kind of events I am trying to track may not have a family relatioship what do you think of the following work around?

I could create two separate events (which kind of defeats the whole design of TMG) for each directional event.

For example, I would create a land sale and land purchase event and enter each seperatly on each principal. The two events would not be linked and each only have one principal so, both would export to Gedcom.

What would be the downside to the two event approach? Would there be any gotchas in reports, index or anything like that?

 

Thanks again for you replies!

Dan

Edited by arreaux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would be the downside to the two event approach? Would there be any gotchas in reports, index or anything like that?

You can always customize things in TMG to control your report output. Just keep in mind that TMG can do many things that are not compatible with the GEDCOM 5.5 specs and won't be exported to GEDCOM files. If your intent is to have things exported to GEDCOM, then compromises in how you use TMG are necessary.

 

If your concern about GEDCOM output is for web display, you might want to consider using Second Site rather than GEDCOM to build your web pages. Using Second Site, you don't need to place any limits on using TMG's capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jim says, if you want to maintain the ability to export "everything" via GEDCOM you will have to make serious compromises in your use of TMG. Beyond the two-principal tag issue, you can't make any use of Witnesses, nor have any intelligence in Sentences, Roles, Source Templates, Styles, etc.

 

In this particular case, one downside I see from using two separate tags (other than the added work of creating them) is that if you use Second Site to create a website from the data, there will not be link created where the other party is mentioned in the output.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim and Terry!

I think I'll have to make some compromises in how I use TMG. It's unfortunate that the GEDCOM exporter isn't as robust or flexible as I'd like. I frequently trade data with other researchers who do not use TMG, so GEDCOM is my only choice. It does me no good to have an individual with 100 or more directional events not export anything in a GEDCOM.

 

Thanks again!

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome, Dan.

 

I, too, often trade information with other researchers. But I never use GEDCOM. :)

 

I simply send them a Journal report in pdf format. I do that for several reasons, including the fact that I'm unwilling to give up multi-person tags and expecially use of Witnesses. Also, my sources citations would be total gibberish in GEDCOM, as would many of my extended event descriptions. By sending Journals I know they will see exactly what I intended.

 

But in any case, I never import GEDCOMs and really don't think others should either, so I suppose I'd not send them even if they were reliable. For the reasons for this see my "editorial" on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's unfortunate that the GEDCOM exporter isn't as robust or flexible as I'd like.

The GEDCOM export does what is allowed by the GEDCOM 5.5 specs... no more and no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan,

 

It isn't the TMG exporter's fault. It is the gedcom format itself that is neither as robust nor as flexible as you would like.

 

When exchanging info with others I make it clear that I'll only provide text reports simply because that is the only way I can be sure that I can transmit all the info. They are free to accept this or not. At the same time I'm willing to accept info in whatever form they wish to transmit it. If they send a gedcom I'll import it, print out a text report and use that for entry into TMG rather than use the gedcom itself.

 

 

Thanks Jim and Terry!

I think I'll have to make some compromises in how I use TMG. It's unfortunate that the GEDCOM exporter isn't as robust or flexible as I'd like. I frequently trade data with other researchers who do not use TMG, so GEDCOM is my only choice. It does me no good to have an individual with 100 or more directional events not export anything in a GEDCOM.

 

Thanks again!

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone is in agreement that it would be nice if the GEDCOM standard was updated to be more robust. What I don't often see mentioned is to consider the possibility that you may someday need to use a GEDCOM export to transition your data to a new program. While I am of the opinion that TMG is the best current genealogy program for my needs, I have no idea what genealogy programs may be released in the future, nor whether TMG may be discontinued at some point (I'm certainly hoping this doesn't happen, though). As history has shown, there is not a great track record for longevity of genealogy programs. Hopefully, TMG will continue to be an exception to this trend, but one never knows for sure concerning future events (no disrepect meant to all the efforts of Wholly Genes in developing and maintaining TMG).

 

Should a change of program be necessary at some point, I would hope not to have to manually type everything into the new program. A GEDCOM transfer would not be perfect, but by carefully compromising my use of TMG I could transfer the majority of data, with some minor cleanup work needed to finish the job. I've read several posts on other boards from people, who didn't anticipate the loss of info being exported when making full use of witnesses, multi-principal census tags, etc., and then realizing the work needed to get that data into their new program, after the fact.

 

Terry has some very good thoughts on this subject in his 'editorial' referenced above, but Jim Byram also points out some very reasonable compromises to provide maximum data portability in his chapter on exporting in GTMOOTMG. As is pointed out in the book, Jim's census compromise also has the benefit of conforming to the NARA recommendation for recording census information.

 

Just something to consider, and hopefully it may be of help.

Edited by Dan Stone

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

×