Please do NOT expect all Feature Requests to be actioned automatically. Describing your proposal here will ensure the development team are aware of it, and they will give it careful consideration.

TOPIC:

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #26

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2137
Family records should not have ASSO tags. This is only for INDI to INDI. Remove this and see if the error changes
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #27

  • bertkoor
  • bertkoor's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Greetings from Utrecht, Holland
  • Posts: 2409
I have plenty ASSO/RELA tags in marriage events (mainly parents or siblings being a witnesses) but this is no problem for webtrees. I just checked for errors, it's definitely not found as a problem.

But being an "associate" for your own marriage seems somewhat wrong. That I would remove.


To solve the reported problem, you could try to remove the husband I3761 from F1397, check whether all pointers back & forth are removed in both the person & family GEDCOM record (also perform check for Errors to see weather it helped) and then add him again as the husband.
stamboom.BertKoor.nl runs on webtrees v1.7.13

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by ToyGuy. Reason: correct spelling on WHETHER, not weather

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #28

  • Peter_S
  • Peter_S's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 210
Hello Ken,

you are right in scope of GEDCOM 5.5.1 but you are wrong in scope of webtrees.

In webtrees it is allowed to use the ASSO tag in FAM-records to show relations from marriages to witnesses of marriage.
See also in webtrees Wiki: wiki.webtrees.net/en/Custom_Relationship...of_the_ASSOciate_tag

Best regards
Peter
Peter

webtrees 1.7.18 and 2.0.16, vesta modules
PHP 7.4.3, MySQL 5.7.25
Webhosting: genonline.de

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by Peter_S.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #29

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2137
Peter,

You are probably right. Thanks for the insight.

But as Bert says this is not a MARR.ASSO in my mind. A MARR.ASSO would be for things only related to the marriage event not for interpersonal relationships. This relationship would more likely in my mind be used with the actual REAL use of the ASSO tag INDI to INDI not on an event.

If the individual had presided over the event or participated in the event as a "best man", "maid of honor" then I could see the inclusion.


This all being said I think the GEDCOM looks right and I don't know why the report would flag the error.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #30

  • thomas52
  • thomas52's Avatar
  • Away
  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member
  • Western North Carolina
  • Posts: 927
I suspect the error checker might be looking for a match -- if the family (@Fxxxx@) file shows an individual (@Ixxxx@), it wants a match in the individual back to the family. If it sees two, it looks for two matches, but in this case, there won't be one. As I say, possibly a small bug, way down the list of issues.
"Failure is an amazing teacher." (L'échec est un professeur extraordinaire.)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #31

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2137
It is a requirement that all FAMS pointers in an INDI go to the FAM record and the FAM have a HUSB/WIFE pointer returning to the same INDI.

If the INDI has two FAMS pointers each of the FAM records MUST point back to the INDI.

If this is not the case then this is an error in your GEDCOM. I did not see this in your example but I may have missed the evidence.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #32

  • thomas52
  • thomas52's Avatar
  • Away
  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member
  • Western North Carolina
  • Posts: 927
You're correct, the second @Ixxxx@ in my family file was an ASSO, not a second FAMS.
"Failure is an amazing teacher." (L'échec est un professeur extraordinaire.)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #33

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2137
FAMS is a tag found only in an INDI record type not a FAM record type.

The INDI.FAMS tag is read as: "This INDIvidual is a spouse in the FAMily of @F...@". The FAM.HUSB tag is read as: "This FAMily is made up of HUSBand @I...@".
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #34

  • fisharebest
  • fisharebest's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 14878
The code assumes that there will only be one type of link between two records. Here you have two types of link between the FAM and the INDI.

IMHO, if you want to note that the man is marrying his cousin, then a NOTE would be a better choice than an ASSO.

Although the error message is misleading, I'm not sure we should attempt to fix the "bug".
Greg Roach - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - fisharebest.webtrees.net

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #35

  • Peter_S
  • Peter_S's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 210

The code assumes that there will only be one type of link between two records. Here you have two types of link between the FAM and the INDI.

IMHO, if you want to note that the man is marrying his cousin, then a NOTE would be a better choice than an ASSO.

Although the error message is misleading, I'm not sure we should attempt to fix the "bug".


Hello Greg,

Why are you not sure? The error message as Thomas52 wrote "INDI I3761 has a FAMS link to F1397. F1397 does not have a link back to I3761." has nothing to do with the detected error described by you.

Best regards
Peter
Peter

webtrees 1.7.18 and 2.0.16, vesta modules
PHP 7.4.3, MySQL 5.7.25
Webhosting: genonline.de

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #36

  • fisharebest
  • fisharebest's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 14878
The "check for errors" code maintains only one type of link.
There are two ("HUSB @I3761@" and "ASSO @I3761").
The second link overwrites the first.

So, when we analyse the links, we find just the following:

I3761 has a FAMS link to F1397
F3971 has a ASSO link to I1763
Greg Roach - This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. - fisharebest.webtrees.net

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #37

  • Peter_S
  • Peter_S's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
  • Posts: 210
Hello Greg,

yes, I understand. But an error message like "Double or multiple links to the same person are not allowed: HUSB: I3761, ASSO: I3761" is more useful than "INDI I3761 has a FAMS link to F1397. F1397 does not have a link back to I3761." :-)

Best regards
Peter
Peter

webtrees 1.7.18 and 2.0.16, vesta modules
PHP 7.4.3, MySQL 5.7.25
Webhosting: genonline.de

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #38

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2137
The point is that the current code does not know that there are multiple links just that the links do not match. ASSO in an event is a hack, that was not part of the original v5.5.1 strict check that this was to enforce. It see the link as not being complete not as two different links. Two different links was not in the v5.5.1 strict design.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #39

  • WGroleau
  • WGroleau's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Elite Member
  • Elite Member
  • Posts: 1718
If I may refer back to the previous page’s topic :-) ...

I agree with Greg that it may be worthwhile to support extensions that a large number of other programs have adopted.

And I think the evolutionary enhancements that list seems to be coming up with are the only way we’ll ever get a “better GEDCOM.” All the other well-meaning and even sometimes well-done “throw it out and start over” proposals share a fatal flaw, which is that no one offering a working program wants to start over—and no one wants to buy/use a program that doesn’t talk to the others.

But I do not think it was not a good decision to create a custom tag that differs from a standard tag only by the leading underscore.
--
Wes Groleau
UniGen.us/

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #40

  • nigelo
  • nigelo's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor

But I do not think it was not a good decision to create a custom tag that differs from a standard tag only by the leading underscore.


Wes, do you really mean "I do not think it was not a good decision ...." or should that be "I do think it was not a good decision ..."??? You seem to have a double-negative going on there.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #41

  • WGroleau
  • WGroleau's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Elite Member
  • Elite Member
  • Posts: 1718
Too many edits working against each other. :-) i think it was not wise. Underscores disappear sometimes.
--
Wes Groleau
UniGen.us/

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #42

  • norwegian_sardines
  • norwegian_sardines's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
  • Posts: 2137

I agree with Greg that it may be worthwhile to support extensions that a large number of other programs have adopted.

But unfortunately many programs have adopted similar concepts but not necessarily similar tags or placed the tags in the same place.

Some GEDCOMs add tags that are not necessary if they had read the v5.5 or v5.5.1 standard. For instance _NATU in FTM for natural mother and father. The concept exists in the GEDCOM already, but in a less than perfect way. Also all the event and fact additional tags for DNA, school, military service, property etc. And the misuse of the "Description" tag.

It would take us a long time to sift thru the tags and decide which ones were most used, because if we pick one based on our users and we don't have enough users YET from another software set then we could be missing a much larger population of users.

So this brings me back to the translation both in and out of GEDCOM tags for round trippers. If we intend to have a normalized, non-GEDCOM based database... We will, if we want to please everyone have to support input and output of various specific dialects of GEDCOM as well as our own dialect and maintain that going forward.

If we don't want to have a non-GEDCOM based database then none of this matters except for tables to translate the 100 or 1000 of various tags that people could send to us. _ASSO vs ASSO in a fact/event is only one of them.
Ken

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Last edit: by norwegian_sardines.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #43

  • WGroleau
  • WGroleau's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Elite Member
  • Elite Member
  • Posts: 1718

I agree with Greg that it may be worthwhile to support extensions that a large number of other programs have adopted.

But unfortunately many programs have adopted similar concepts but not necessarily similar tags or placed the tags in the same place.

the claim was that a group had come up with a consensus that many programs had adopted. Different thing from incompatible independently developed extensions.

Some GEDCOMs add tags that are not necessary if they had read the v5.5 or v5.5.1 standard.

Like _MARNM
--
Wes Groleau
UniGen.us/

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #44

  • thomas52
  • thomas52's Avatar
  • Away
  • Premium Member
  • Premium Member
  • Western North Carolina
  • Posts: 927
If I recall, I can edit the language file to add _MILI to mean Military (or something of that nature.)
But if there are that many different "packages," this would suggest to me a USER setup, or something unique to that user or a group of users.
Would not a module of some type be possible where a user could input their own tags.
The histo.en_US file allows me to show the events of my choosing. Perhaps an option something like the theme option? Or possibly something of this nature where the data or settings could be input offline and added?
Just a thought; I have no clue of the feasibility, but I do know if you try to please EVERYONE, the result is you please NO ONE.
"Failure is an amazing teacher." (L'échec est un professeur extraordinaire.)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

GEDCOM Tag _ASSO support 7 years 8 months ago #45

  • nigelo
  • nigelo's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor

If I recall, I can edit the language file to add _MILI to mean Military (or something of that nature.)
But if there are that many different "packages," this would suggest to me a USER setup, or something unique to that user or a group of users.
Would not a module of some type be possible where a user could input their own tags.
The histo.en_US file allows me to show the events of my choosing. Perhaps an option something like the theme option? Or possibly something of this nature where the data or settings could be input offline and added?
Just a thought; I have no clue of the feasibility, but I do know if you try to please EVERYONE, the result is you please NO ONE.


Already exists: wiki.webtrees.net/en/Custom_Tags

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum