![]() In other words: the same as if I found a book or even an electronic census that had people who had a potential kinship. I actually like to think of a foreign GEDCOM as just another source (a tertiary one) which happens to be in a format that I can add to the WT-DB. Might be a good reason to have a temporary "additional GEDCOM" that is linked to from the master for a while and information is slowly merged from the temp GEDCOM into the master on a one by one basis. Standards don't match, sourcing may not be as good, ability to back out a large change. Merging in a of a large GEDCOM from an outside source is hair raising at best. I can see this as being a way to document large groupings of new individuals that came from "a source". It doesn’t really make any sense to apply a source to an individual, so I will restrict sources to facts.īeing that when a new individual from an outside GEDCOM is merged into your 'master gedcom' an admin may want to mark the INDI record with a SOUR that states where the INDI was first found before it was merged this way as Stephen says:ĭo you wish to add a SOUR record to each addition to show that you imported this data? GEDCOM also allows you to assign sources to both facts and individuals. I know this is a little off topic but I finally see a reason to have a SOUR record associated with the INDI (as opposed to just events and relationships) in Greg's "Normalized" Genesis DB. Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation. ![]() Accompanying this, there are other policies: there may be no pending changes at initiation edit permission is closed on the old GEDCOM until the admin lifts it numbering in the new GEDCOM is determined by a global policy (much as WT "fills in" the IDs between records, now). However, one of your "throw-away" options, treated as a baseline of behaviour, might provide an answer to some of Greg's concerns: copy (with permissions) into a new GEDCOM, and then append the new one into that. No, it's not trivial, and the issues Greg raises are deep ones. Stephen, you say user decisions, I hear design decisions. And, do you want to renumber the entire GEDCOM, selecting the #1 person, or do you wish the import to fill in the blanks and then number sequentially thereafter, or do you wish simply a renumbering from the highest existing number in what we'll call the 'master' gedcom? Do you wish to add a SOUR record to each addition to show that you imported this data? I can think of perhaps another half-dozen similar questions, including do we append into a new GEDCOM, or add to the old one? ToyGuy wrote: You all make this sound so easy - BUT, the number and difficulty of the decisions prior to appending are vexing at best. The additive merging of two gedcoms (and subsequent renumbering, if desired) is very good with a program like GEDITCOM. Webtrees' ability to merge INDI, FAM, SOUR, REPO, NOTE, etc data via a matched record is excellent, and assuming that there are few duplicates, pretty fast. Different data entry standards can create havoc with the formatting of the resulting data. **NOTE: I'm still in hopes that his data entry lookup routines (a sort-of autocomplete function with warnings about possible matches and a pre-entry selection list) can be redesigned and included within webtrees.ġ) no one wants a program to guess about which data to merge or which to retain, which is properly documented and which is not, which is properly formatted and which is not, andĢ) there exists no perfect (or even really good) merge options. Daniel Kionka's GDBI java program also did a better than average job of suggesting duplicates upon both data entry and merging. Only a couple of these attempt to actually merge duplicates. Within those threads are discussed at length the various WIN programs that offer what, at best, would be discussed a rough merge and several times I've offered to use GEDITCOM to perform merges on my mac for admins. There are dozens of threads on the PGV site (as well as a couple here) that discuss that there is no true merge function in either PGV or webtrees.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |