Family Tree Maker 7.5 Summary

Export

Test GEDCOM 1

The GEDCOM GEDCHK report found 1 syntax error, 22 tag exceptions, and 26 extension tags.

The syntax error was a missing GEDCOM FORM tag (i.e. lineage-linked) that did not appear in the header as required.

The tag exceptions included the following:

1. A NOTE on a Sealed to Spouse (SLGS) entry was coded at level 3 instead of level 2.

2. A series of tag exceptions occurred when the cause of death (CAUS) tag was followed by a series of other tags. CAUS can not have subordinate tags. In this instance it was a source tag (SOUR).

3. Another series of tag exceptions was created by the address (ADDR) tag being improperly used.

4. The tag COMM (comment) is not a legal tag and should be indicated as an extension.

26 extension tags are listed in the GEDCOM but only six are actually used. Extension tags are legal in Gedcom 5.5 but are only useful when imported by the same program as the program that created the Gedcom file. A previous GEDCOM 5.X draft introduced a _SCHEMA for the use of extended tags but was never implemented.

The six extensions are:

1. _MILT for Military service event

2. _MDCL for a medical entry.

3. _FA1 used as the superior tag for the date and location of annulment and divorce

4. _MEND used as the superior tag for the text, annulment and divorce

5. _MREL and _FREL for parental relationships to a child.

Data export problems:

Caste (CAST) data exported as a place (PLAC). The field normally used for place can store up to 256 characters of data about a fact.
Alias (ALIA) tag exports the aka field.

Test GEDCOM 2

The second FTW GEDCOM uses only two tag extensions, _MDCL and _MILT.
It does not code CAUS with the result there are no errors from that source.
There are five cross- reference errors in the notes as a result of the same number being used on multiple occasions.
The ADOP (Adopted) tag appears illegally in the FAM record.
Other syntax errors found in the first file are still present.

Conclusion:

The content of a FTW GEDCOM can be influenced by the actions of the user.

Export rating: 92.57 %

GEDCOM imports:

Control GEDCOM

At time of import fields were assigned to:

1. AFN (Ancestral file number)

2. ANCI Ancestor interest)

3. ASSO (Association)

4. CHAN (Last changed date)

5. CHRA (Adult christening)

6. DESI (descendant interest)

7. DSCR (description)

8. IDNO (ID number)

9. NCHI (Number of children)

10. PHON (phone number).

Family Tree Makers exception list found the following problems with the control file.
Submission information (SUBN). This tag, FAMF andORDI are only of interest to the Church.
Family file (FAMF)
Ordinance (ORDI)
Roles (ROLE). FTW has no fields for roles or number of marriages.
Number of marriages (NMR)
Image tag (OBJE)
Record identification number tag (RIN) not recognized.

The list also includes a number of tags supposedly at the wrong levels. They are:
Age (AGE)
Temple (TEMP)
Ancestors (ANCE). This tag and DESC are used only by the Church.
Descendants (DESC)
Language (LANG)
Notes (NOTE) at the 2nd level with a subordinate quality tag.

The program also failed to understand the use of the ID number tag (IDNO) and its subordinate type tag.
It also did not understand the residence tag (RESI) with the subordinate address tags.

Problems in the control file import of facts were as follows:

Citation text in EVEN (Event)-mil promotion appeared in footnote instead of as a citation.
The age tag was recognized but reported as at wrong level.
The field created for the associate tag at import was not created and the information ignored.
Notes at the 0 level using the cross-reference @xref@ and notes at the 1 level are sent to general notes. If in a source they are sent to the source quality field. Notes using the reference pointer at level 2 are not imported.
Dates in FROM-TO format are not considered valid and are ignored.

The exception file fails to list them as problems but the name tags NSFX (suffix), NPFX (prefix), SPFX (sort element) and NICK (nickname) are not recognized.
The Alias tag, which uses a cross-reference, is sent to the aka field.
Ordination tag data appears in the notes.
An event tag (EVEN) requires a type tag (TYPE) otherwise the source is not linked to the event.
The physical description was recorded as an event, not in the designated fields.
FTW failed to record the address when subordinated to residence tag. It will recognize UFT address data which is not properly coded.

Problems with source input:

Any data using the publication (PUBL) tag and requiring the use of the continued tag (CONT) is not recorded. If this situation occurs when the title tag (TITL) is used the information will appear in the source comments field. Note (NOTE) data appears in the source quality field. Information exported with a text tag (TEXT) is sent to the source comments field. When a source uses the 1st level DATA tag and the subordinate 2nd level EVEN tag the place and agency information, which is coded at the 3rd level, is not recorded. Repository data, including notes, does not transfer to available field. Abbreviation (ABBR) data, reference number (REFN), and date changed (CHAN) were recorded in source comments. Media type transfer is limited, working for book and electronic but not for fiche or film. Remained at last setting until retriggered by acceptable data.

Import rating: 72.87 %

TMG Version 4.0a

TMG offers its users a wide variety of GEDCOM export choices to compensate for some of the variations found in importation requirements of other programs. Users must read the GEDCOM export section of the manual before creating a GEDCOM file. For this test the standard options were used.

FTW 's exception list reports very few problems with the TMG GEDCOM file. Two tags are listed as unknown. Family Tree Maker did not recognize the number of marriages tag (NMR), the series of tags used to transfer image data (OBJE), or any date using the From–To format, (e.g From 1826 to 1834. Other date ranges using months and year transferred). The number of children (NCHI) was reported as at wrong level although it was exported properly. The only other problems were as a result of TMG's use of the PAGE and CONT tags for citation data.

TMG recorded but did not export the following: Role tags, Alias information, physical description, LDS temple location if Temple Code is present, individual's address, associate information.

The following data was exported in unexpected manner.
Nickname exported using the name tag, not the expected nickname tag.
Cause of death exported as a note.
User created custom events using the miscellaneous event tag and exported without the expected subordinate type tag sent the information describing the event a note.
The ordination tag data “Deacon” exported as note.

Sources:

TMG exports citation detail using the page and continued tags. An inconsistency in the GEDCOM 5.5 specs does not allow the continued tag to be used with the page tag. The page tag is limited to 248 characters when used without the continued tag. TMG's use of the continued tag to set line lengths results in data being truncated in some instances.
Call numbers were added to source title. This can result in the use of the continued tag which is legal but not supported by FTW for titles.

FTW recording problems:

The miscellaneous event tag (EVEN), without a subordinate TYPE tag did not link the source although date and location transferred and type information appeared in notes.
Adoption date and location transferred but the adopting father was recognized as the natural father. Wrong source linked to NATU (Naturalization) for INDI (Individual) #10.

Source problems:

No repository information transferred. FTW does not recognize legitimate use of CONC or CONT tags with Title or Publisher data. Media type appears to recognize only electronic or book. Field setting remains in the last used position otherwise.
Source notes placed in source quality field. Quality codes placed in citation text field.
Other source data, including the truncated data, usually transferred to source comments field.

Summary:

Of the data contained in the TMG GEDCOM almost all of it transferred properly. Aside from source data, which will require editing, the only data loss that might create problems are those events using the EVEN tag and the date ranges using the From-To convention.. In those instances the event will have to be properly identified and the sources linked. The missing dates would have to be recovered from the GEDCOM. Citation information that was truncated as a result of TMG's use of the PAGE tag will also have to be recovered from the GEDCOM.

Ultimate Family Tree 3 to FTW 7.5

UFT offers two GEDCOM options of interest to most users, the GEDCOM 5.5 Family option and the Family Tree Maker option. Importing the Family version to FTW creates an exception list with a long list of errors. Most of these “errors” are indeed errors in coding. Four of the “errors” are significant however. They involve the sources and are not errors in the GEDCOM but in FTW's reading of the file. The error reports invalid CRI, line ignored. The result is the four sources are not transferred. The file created with the FTW option however creates a file with only one “error”, a note at the wrong level in the header.

The difference between the two files is that the Family file provides the source type, the last changed date and uses a cross-reference to link the repository. In the FTW file the repository is included using the repository tag with the data as a note.

GEDCHK indicates the Temple tags are at wrong levels. UFT uses the miscellaneous event tag rather than legitimate GEDCOM tags for LDS events and codes Temple names at the wrong level. Address components are improperly coded. Dates in the sources are at the wrong levels. See the Ultimate Family Tree Summary for full details.

UFT does not code all the source data that was entered originally. The exported data is extracted from the source component fields. Author, title and publication facts transfer properly with other information in the component list. If the repository is a source component, it will transfer. Any data recorded on the “more” page, repository, annotation, comments, call numbers, condition, data quality, transcript file number, references, image files, flags, index information, source transcripts and other items do not transfer. None of the “proof” information is exported. Media type is not a selectable option.

UFT in the FTW mode did not export quality, roles, cause of death, number of marriages, ages, religion, nationality, physical description, image tags, abbreviations, associate information, marriage license data, marriage banns, name tags (prefix, suffix, or nicknames. Only the structured dates were exported. Date ranges are not exported.
Any events using the miscellaneous event tag did not export the citation information.
Source links for marriage, annulment, marriage contract, divorce, filing for divorce were not exported. The adoption link was not made to the stepfather and source and date information for a name change was not provided. No details beyond basic title was coded for occupation. The alias tag information was imported to the aka field.

UFT uses the miscellaneous event tag for caste, conflicting birth, residence, ordination, property, LDS baptism, LDS confirmation, LDS endowment, Child sealing, ID number, Social Security number, education and graduation.
FTW records all data coded by in the FTW version of the UFT GEDCOM properly with abbreviations, reference numbers and last changed date entered in the source comments field.

Summary:

Obviously, the best way to transfer data from UFT to FTW is to use the option provided for that purpose. All data coded to the GEDCOM by UFT transfers. Unfortunately, UFT fails to code much of the detail actually contained in its files. Given the quality of the UFT GEDCOMs any user wishing to transfer their data to another program has only one choice, the Genbridge option available in The Master Genealogist.

Generations Grande Suite 8

The Generations GEDCOM, when checked with the GEDCHK program revealed a number of problems. (See Generations Grande Suite 6 Summary.)
Of primary importance is the failure to properly code the text of the source citation. The information is in the GEDCOM but in the wrong context for the tag used. Generations provides users with a list of tags for use when recording events or facts. Many of these tags have been assigned a custom GEDCOM tag. Failure on the part of the user to check each of these tags against an authorized list of GEDCOM tags can result in failure to transfer the data. In this instance, the physical description was assigned a DESC tag instead of DSCR. When the general-purpose EVEN (Event) tag was used Generations failed to identify the event with a subordinate TYPE tag. Other problems include improper coding of legitimate tags. These include ALIA (Alias), NICK (Nickname), ADDR (Address), CALN (Call number) and MEDI (Media). DATE and PLAC (Place) in the source information were coded at the wrong level in some instances.

Other tags, CAST (Caste), CAUS (Cause of death) as well as Temple names and submission codes were exported as notes. Generations did not code the image information (OBJE). Generations allows users to create specific note fields. These fields are not identified at export but the notes are exported. Generations placed these notes at 1 level with a cross reference (@xref@ Nx) to the note which is at the 0 level. Generations does not code the name suffix but includes it with name.

Generations presented a few data recording situations requiring the data be entered out of context. The quality of data may only be specified for the source (uses correct tag) so quality data for the citations was included with the citation. Role information was also recorded in this field for similar reasons. The Generations citation field is too small for long citations requiring that these be posted to notes.

Import:

The exception list FTW created for the Generations GEDCOM correctly identified a number of the above problems. It also failed to import some coded data.
Title and nickname did not transfer. FTW recorded Alias as aka missing the supporting text which was improperly coded in any case. Number of marriages was not imported.
Any event using the From-To date convention transferred the place information but failed to record the date. When event data was transferred using the EVEN tag without the subordinate TYPE tag the date transferred but not the source and in one case, the place.

The coding problems in Generations caused the citation detail, which included the quality and role information, not to transfer. Cause of death and occupation were coded as notes and appeared in the FTW notes field. Unfortunately, they are not identified as to which event they refer. The address was coded using the residence tag and transferred as a fact.
FTW recovered notes coded at the 0 level with no problems. The ALIA (Alias) tag information imported to the aka field.

Source data

The major problem with source transfer was the inability of FTW to pick up the repository information. Other items, such as call numbers and media did not appear in the correct fields but were recorded in the comments field. If date and place appeared in the source coding it was also placed in the comment field.
Generations coded the additional lines required to record source text at the same level as the first line of text and using the same tag (TEXT) thus creating a major error. Any item coded as a note appears in the source quality field.

Summary:

Any FTW user attempting to import data from Generations will face a major editing job to restore source and citation information. There were few problems with the transfer of basic data.