Family Historian User Group

I see them... and I'm very excited to see the semicolon to separate the layers!

Ssshhh! You'll have everyone who doesn't use EE-style citations think we're crazy, being pleased by a semicolon!

I haven't got out much recently!

Moving from RM7 to FH7. I used a lot of layered citations (yes a semicolon lover too). I locate a significant number of information from non-indexed digital files on FamilySearch, so a typical citation for me would look like:
Footnote:
Buena Vista County, Iowa, Deed Record vol. 9: 602, Hannah Aherin to Charles Porath, 1 March 1902; digital images, FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : downloaded 27 January 2021) > digital film 8586492 >image 182 of 949; imaged from FHL film 1428891, item 1 microfilmed by the Genealogical Society at the Buena Vista Co. Courthouse in Storm Lake, Iowa on 28 June 1985; Hannah Aherin is noted as single.

Short Footnote:
Buena Vista County, Iowa, Deed vol. 9: 602.

Bibliography:
Iowa. Buena Vista County. Deed Record. Courthouse, Storm Lake, Iowa. Digital File 8586492, FamilySearch. https:familysearch.org : 2021.

I created a template specifically for Family Search and from this and would then set up a source for each jurisdiction and record type (deed, mortage, marriage, etc).

The problem is, it did not Gedcom over well at all and so I am looking at some significant work. I just started looking at the FH7 templates and feel comfortable I could recreate the custom templates in FH7 but am hesitant to spend the time on citations that will not work well with Gedcom. At some point I would like to look at a Website and want something that will feed into the site well.

With some adjustments to my format, I think I could make the Advanced collection work for me but would like to know if anyone had any experience with how well those transfer in Gedcom files.
Thanks

Exporting Templated Sources might help

The advice given there regarding the 'Export GEDCOM File' plugin needs updating as the plugin has moved on.
1) 'Rich Text Formatting' is now handled with various options for different target products.
2) The is an 'Extra Options' tab setting for Source Templates called 'Reformat Metafields' where each Source generic Title is moved to the generic Short Title and the Footnote plain text becomes the generic Title.

Mike, perhaps you could check the KB for references to your plugins when you update them? Otherwise, we'll never know the advice needs changing?

If you could send me your suggested wording, I'll be sure to get it right when I update it.

Yes, it is on my check list of things to do...

RM to FH7 convert. I am combination lumper and splitter, depending on the source and how many pages/documents I will be citing from a given source. In RM I created sources in their free-form template (see Mervyn’s 25 Feb post), RM templates and a number of customized templates to create layered citations.
No matter what type of citation, the import of the Gedcom file placed the entire long footnote created in RM into the Title field of the Generic Template. If I pull up one of the citations in FH7, the Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography are all showing the same text entered in the Title field in italicized format. The italicized format would be expected if option to italicize title is set in the preferences.
I do not see the short Footnote or Bibliography from RM any where in FH7. I have not checked the Gedcom file to see how they were exported and if they are in the UID report.
Although I expected “issues” with the template created citations, I was surprised the free-form did not Gedcom well either. I thought that was the main reason to use free form - the were Gedcom friendly.
Unless I am missing something, it appears I am looking at having to recreate every citation and was considering just copy and pasting the citations from RM but not sure where to paste them to.
The advantage of the RM free-form template is I could create a citation (with unlimited layers) in a text program and then paste them into the template, but don’t see any similar option in FH7.
The two options I see mentioned here is paste the entire citation in the Title field which appears to create formatting problems or to paste them into the notes. (Which to me is similar to the RM fields). My question is how do reports handle citations if they are in the notes? How would FH7 know which part of the note is the long footnote, the short footnote or the bibliography?

This is just a general comment without any solution.
The difficulties you are experiencing were discussed during FH V7 beta test regarding the portability of templated sources.
Unfortunately, there seems to be little compatibility between products because each one has gone its own custom way.
GEDCOM is often criticized for being outdated, but without it the difficulties you are experiencing would apply to the whole database.

I expected the difficulties with the “template” citations - FH7 (or any other receiving program) would not know where or how RM put the custom fields in the Gedcom or know what to do with them within the FH7 project.
What surprised me was the free form citations. I thought these (or at least the long footnote) was just a text string and was exported to specific/standardized place in the Gedcom file.
Sooooo, the big question is what is best methodology going forward. I use lots of layered citations which means creating my own templates. I have played with FH7 templates enough that I am confident I can recreate any of my customized templates, but since these are already created in RM, I am considering using RM as a tool to create the layered citations and then once created, copy and paste the Footnote/Short Footnote/Bibliography text into FH7. The questions then become: will the formatting stay as generated and where to paste it?

Mike posted:
If they really are 'freeform citations' then continue to enter them the same way in the Source record Note field.
In Tools > Preferences > Sources > Generic Source Formats... customize the Footnote, Short Footnote and Bibliography Format to {%SOUR.NOTE2%}. That is all that is necessary.

If I understand this correctly I can create Footnotes, Short Footnotes and Bibliography entries in any text application and put them in the citation note and the set the preferences as noted.

The problem I see with this approach is that it is basically an “extreme splitter” methodology and I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 deed record citation in about 10 sources and over 1,000 newspaper articles from 4 sources.

It sounds like you want a different format for each of Footnote, Short Footnote & Bibliography.
If you set all their templates to {%SOUR.NOTE2%} then they will all use the same Rich Text formatted Note text.
So, it gets a bit more complicated if you need three versions for formatted citations.
You will need three labelled Note text lines for the three formats:

Footnote: formatted footnote text goes here
Short Footnote: formatted short footnote goes here
Bibliography: formatted bibliography goes here

Then the three templates would be:
{=GetLabelledText(%SOUR.NOTE2%,"Footnote: ")}
{=GetLabelledText(%SOUR.NOTE2%,"Short Footnote: ")}
{=GetLabelledText(%SOUR.NOTE2%,"Bibliography: ")}

For 'lumper' Source Citations where those formats are in the Citation, use the Cotation local Note instead with templates:
{=GetLabelledText(%CUR~CITN.NOTE2%,"Footnote: ")}
{=GetLabelledText(%CUR~CITN.NOTE2%,"Short Footnote: ")}
{=GetLabelledText(%CUR~CITN.NOTE2%,"Bibliography: ")}

I have created a custom template template in both RM and FH7 that create Footnote/short foot note/bibliography used in reports. I have also attached an image of how the RM citation was imported.


So as I see my options to deal with the imported citations is to either re enter the info for each one into the customized FH7 template and delete the imported record or copy/paste the text into the note field in the following format.

Footnote: Buena Vista County, Iowa, Deed Record vol. 9: 602, Hannah Aherin to Charles Porath, 1 March 1902; digital images, FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : downloaded 27 January 2021) > digital film 8586492 >image 182 of 949; imaged from FHL film 1428891, item 1 microfilmed by the Genealogical Society at the Buena Vista Co. Courthouse in Storm Lake, Iowa on 28 June 1985; Hannah Aherin is noted as single.

Short Footnote: Buena Vista County, Iowa, Deed vol. 9: 602.

Bibliography: Iowa. Buena Vista County. Deed Record. Courthouse, Storm Lake, Iowa. Digital File 8586492, FamilySearch. https:familysearch.org : 2021.

Where do I enter the expressions you provided?
{=GetLabelledText(%SOUR.NOTE2%,"Footnote: ")}
{=GetLabelledText(%SOUR.NOTE2%,"Short Footnote: ")}
{=GetLabelledText(%SOUR.NOTE2%,"Bibliography: ")}

It seems that RM exports its templated Source Citations in much the same way that FH exports its templated Source Citations by putting a plain text version of the Footnote in the Source record Title. However, FH does allow the Metafields to be included as labelled Notes so they could be automatically processed by the receiving product. It is unfortunate that RM does not do the same, unless perhaps it does, and you have not checked if there are any Source record UDF visible on the All tab.

(1)
Yes, you could copy the details one by one into the Metafields of each customized FH V7 Source Citation.
What you have to solve is how to reconnect those new Source Citations to the Facts that cite the imported Source Citations.
For 'splitter' Sources each new Source record could be merged with its imported counterpart and that way the Citation links would all be preserved.
For 'lumper' Sources, like the one in your screenshots, each new Source Citation must be created by hand before copying the details to the Citation Metafields. When all complete in this scenario all the imported Source Citations would be deleted.

It looks like the imported details are in a tidy predictable format. So it should be possible for a custom Plugin to perform the above process automatically. So you may have to choose between a lot of manual labour or learning how to write Plugins to automate the process.

(2)
Copy and paste the formatted details from RM into FH Source record Note fields and 'lumper' Citation Note fields.
You know how to create Source Templates as you have done that for the middle screenshot.
In such Source Templates are the Footnote, Short Footnote & Bibliography format templates where the expressions need to be entered.
For 'lumper' Source Citations they will require a combination of both the %SOUR.NOTE2% and %CUR~CITN.NOTE2% forms of the =GetLabelledText functions.
Unfortunately, this technique will result in a lot of the details being repeated up to three times.

I had a very quick look at this, creating a templated source in RM and importing to FH. FH seemed to do a decent job of capturing all the information, but it doesn't know what it means and the full defined version goes into UDFs, with a concatenated summary in the standard fields.

It should be possible in principle to reformat this to a FH custom source, but I have zero experience of manipulating these in code and never actually use them myself...

My approach to the transfer is to attempt to determine what work flow/ data entry would look like in FH7 going forward and then determine how best to fix the transfer problem to fit into the anticipated work flow strategy. I’ve just started looking at “citations” and I have not looked at the UDF report or the Gedcom file.
I am confident that I will be able to create the templates in FH7 to support the layered citations where appropriate going forward and there are plenty of existing templates to handle the other needs, so now the challenge of how to address the imported citations.
It appears to me that every citation was imported to the Title field and will need some level “correcting” The format n the title field is different depending on the template or free-form used on the RM side, but have not checked to see if it is consistent for any given type of RM template.
Assuming there is some consistency, I like Mike’s suggestion of trying to handle it with a plug in, although I’m thinking it my be several plugins, i.e one for free form citations and one for template generated citations.
Looks like my next step is confirm if the info is in the Gedcom File. If there, I know I can continue with new entries and fix this down the road after I get my head around using/writing queries.

Curtis, Mark's immediately preceding posting confirms what I suspected.
All the fields that existed in RM have been imported to FH as UDF in very obvious NAME and VALUE pairs.
So, if you create FH Source Templates using Metafields with matching Field Names, then it should be very easy for a Plugin to copy each UDF pair to matching Metafields. The same Plugin should cope with all the various Source Citations.
It even looks like the UDF called TID provides a template id that the Plugin can use to select the FH Source Template.

I'm not sure what you mean by free form sources as all the examples so far look like template generated sources.

It's even less manual typing than that isn't it? It looks like the RM templated source has come across as a generic source with a bunch of UDF fields for the stuff it doesn't understand. So a plugin could read that and create the FH templated source directly, using a combination of the custom source fields (yellow background in RM) and citation fields (green in RM).

Translating RM-speak to FH-speak, I think "free form" means a user-created template, rather than a built-in one.

I won't have time to get involved in the details, but it looks like the right plugin could capture all the information, as it is already in FH, and magically recreate all the RM templated sources. Not all the labels will be perfect, judging by this example, but they can be tidied up afterwards.

Mark has paraphrased what I said and included automatically creating the Source Templates too.
A single Plugin should be able to automate the whole process.
It might have to scan all Sources first to discover all possible NAME fields used by one template.
Thank you for clarifying what free form sources are.

The template is not user built, it is one of RMs standard templates. There are no fields. I’m not at my computer where I can attach an example of RM free-form. The “template” or input screen is basically what I would call three note/text fields. One each for footnote, short footnote and bibliography. I don’t see anything similar in FH. The user can type the text in directly, but I think most people create the citation in Word or other application like Zotero and then just paste it in the text box. Later this evening (late night for you folks) I can post an image similar to above, of the citation on the RM side and the resulting import

Something like this, perhaps, interpreting https://evidenceexplained.com/node/1563 ???

Simonides - Yes
So we can follow through the import process, attached are the images of a RM Free-form citation page, the FH imported citation page and the FH Source Record.
I stand corrected - I said there were no fields, when in fact both RM and FH treat what I called the input/text boxes as fields. FH just didn't know what to do with the ShortFootnote and Bibliography fields.

If I understand all this - when there is a free form/Generic/Type 1 citation, all the fields are in the Source Record - when there is a Template/Lumped/Type 2 Source with multiple citations, some of the fields are in the Source Record, but some info is most likely in the UDF.

Consistent with Mark/Mike postings - the info is there, but would two plug-ins be needed, one to "correct" where the fields are already in the Source Record and another plug-in for lumped sources with more than one citation and some information in the UDF?

I am fairly certain that one Plugin could cater for all the various templates in both splitter and lumper styles.

If necessary it could treat the free form style (TID=0) with its three particular FIELD NAME values as a special case.
In that case, does any of the VALUE text include formatting codes such as <b> or <i> for bold, italic, etc?

Creating Source Templates
All the Source Template Metafields created by the Plugin would be plain Text fields, unless we can identify clear cases for other types of field. I believe Mark has a Plugin for changing field types that could be used afterwards where necessary.
They would have no Prompt or Description but they could be added afterwards by hand.
The Source Template fields such as Name, Category & Collection, and the four citation Format fields would have default values that could be altered afterwards by hand.

Other Considerations
What is the significance of the _SUBQ and _BIBL fields?

Are there _TMPLT template definition UDF anywhere else in the data, perhaps in the RM GEDCOM file but excluded by FH?

Plugin Design
I am happy to provide Plugin assistance and script snippets where required, but would find it difficult to go much further as I don't have the full version of RootsMagic and the Essentials version does not support Source Templates.
If anybody is prepared to take on the challenge of the Plugin then start a new thread in the Plugin Discussions forum.

In my “sample” citation there was no formatting, but I have other citations and I see Simonide’s citation that use <i>. Off top of my head, I can’t remember creating citations that use any other formatting.
I also have to figure out how multiple citations to single source were handled. For example in the deed source images posted earlier, I know there were at least two citations “connected” to that source, but don’t see them in the source record. Have not investigated the UDF as yet.

I read through a couple of Helen’s articles on Plug-ins in the KB and have exactly zero experience in Lua (or any other programming language for that matter) so not sure how big of task I would be undertaking. But until I spend more time on the plug-in than I would manually re entering all the info, I am ahead of the game, so I will take this on.

Any suggestions on resources other than KB?

cwhermann wrote: ↑09 Apr 2021 12:14 Any suggestions on resources other than KB?

You'll get a lot of help here -- just ask. No question too stupid, and we won't make you feel like a fool for asking! I've asked a few basic things in my time when I've been code blind from staring at a problem for too long.

P.S. Lua References and Library Modules includes pointes to useful reference documentation.

And there's some guidance in the Plugins Help file (Tools > Plugins > How to Write Plugins)