tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post7239236754302690215..comments2024-03-26T11:22:41.940-07:00Comments on Genea-Musings: Do Genealogy Template Sources Survive When Passed Through GEDCOM?Randy Seaverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17477703429102065294noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-29195042622597221142011-02-10T09:11:58.109-08:002011-02-10T09:11:58.109-08:00Technically, RootsMagic 4 should not pass your tes...Technically, RootsMagic 4 should not pass your test. Although RM4 can process its own GEDCOM file, it can do so only because it uses information it knows internally, which is NOT found in the GEDCOM file itself.<br /><br />A third-party application still cannot reconstruct all standard source templates based solely on an RM4 GEDCOM file, even if the application understands the RM4-specific format.<br /><br />Can RM4 successfully read its own GEDCOM? Yes. Can other applications successfully read it? No. It depends on the intent of your test. To me, a GEDCOM file should be designed to be shared among other applications, and not just between copies of the same application.TreeTraversernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-14039215678186575882011-02-08T09:51:08.682-08:002011-02-08T09:51:08.682-08:00Randy - great series of posts. I have found the sa...Randy - great series of posts. I have found the same problems moving between RM4 and LFT. Did you try the RM4 experiment with a GEDCOM created by RM4 and imported back into RM4? The RM message boards have posts detailing the differences users have found between RM3 and RM4. You may not get the same results...Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10391804005307457046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-16242625470739439812011-02-08T09:33:20.457-08:002011-02-08T09:33:20.457-08:00Legacy 7 will write the entire SourceWriter source...Legacy 7 will write the entire SourceWriter source citation to GEDCOM; there is nothing missing. But it will be scrambled when reimported into Legacy in the same way as it is scrambled when imported into another program.Connienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-22954010445762935142011-02-07T19:08:44.136-08:002011-02-07T19:08:44.136-08:00This is not only a fair test, but it is an excelle...This is not only a fair test, but it is an excellent test. GEDCOM has enough "guts" in it for any program to be able to to export its sources to GEDCOM and import them again perfectly. <br /><br />It is to RootsMagic credit that it does so. What that means is that any other program, with sufficient "smarts", should be able to input a RootsMagic GEDCOM and recreate its sources. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the other two programs don't have enough "smarts" to write enough to GEDCOM or read their own writings back in well enough to reproduce their own sources.<br /><br />Randy, maybe you can inspect the GEDCOM to see if Legacy and FTM2011 at least wrote the entire source information needed to GEDCOM. Then it can be determined if it is their output or input that is lacking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26204193.post-15275255915736625892011-02-07T17:41:39.699-08:002011-02-07T17:41:39.699-08:00I am not totally certain that this is a fair test....I am not totally certain that this is a fair test. As I think you know, I am one of Legacy's Beta testers, and have played around a lot with the sourcing. I also am a 'lumper' i.e. I make extensive use of the Source Details and minimum use of the Master Sources, such that all my 1901 English census results from, say Findmypast, have the same Master Source.<br /><br />My reservation is whether the criteria should be the preservation of the original format, or the production of the same report/website output after import/export. In fact using GEDCOM 5.5 for the export/import the output was the same as the original, except that the citation date had been lost - perhaps understandably as, arguably, it should now be the date of the import (although it was not changed). I had no style information in my sources, so was unable to test this.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I stand by my previous comment that, in my view, the problem lies with the inability of the GEDCOM format to support current practices.Ronfergyhttp://www.fergys.co.uk/noreply@blogger.com