On Wed, 8 Aug 2012 20:05:25 -0700 (PDT), pblair <pblair@pcug.org.au> wrote: >I've been asked to help with an upgrade. > >I notice that there are quite a few structural changes between these versions. So what is the best way to go? > >My thoughts run like this: take a GEDCOM from the v6 build, rename the present Legacy folder to something else, and build v7.x in a new Legacy folder. Import GEDCOM to v7.x.... > >That seems simple enough - but there may be a better way, of course. Suggestions welcome... Just install it, open the Legacy 6.0 database with the new version and it will convert it. Back it up first, because the old version won't be able to read the new one. I haven't done if from 6.x to 7.xx, because I never used 6.x, but I did do it successuflly from 5.x to 7.x. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

I've been asked to help with an upgrade. I notice that there are quite a few structural changes between these versions. So what is the best way to go? My thoughts run like this: take a GEDCOM from the v6 build, rename the present Legacy folder to something else, and build v7.x in a new Legacy folder. Import GEDCOM to v7.x.... That seems simple enough - but there may be a better way, of course. Suggestions welcome... Paul

Clooz is a genealogical research tool that enables you to analyse your data in various ways, and possibly open up new avenues for research. Development of the program was recently taken over by Ancestral Systems, and they are now offering a free trial of Clooz 3.0, which is due to be released soon. For more information see: http://www.clooz.com/ -- Steve Hayes Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/ http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/

pblair wrote: > On Friday, August 3, 2012 5:09:13 AM UTC+10, singhals wrote: >> Is there now an alternative to Reunion for MAC users? I >> >> recently had a MAC user ask about a new program whose name >> >> has absolutely fled my memory, so I thought I'd ask someone >> >> who knows? (g) >> >> >> >> Cheryl > > Any clues here? > > http://genealogy-software-review.toptenreviews.com/mac-genealogy-software/ Yes, Thanks! It was MacFamily. I'll pass the link onward. Cheryl

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:32:15 -0500 Steve W. Jackson opined: >In article <mailman.2.1343934555.3838.gencmp@rootsweb.com>, > singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > >> Is there now an alternative to Reunion for MAC users? I >> recently had a MAC user ask about a new program whose name >> has absolutely fled my memory, so I thought I'd ask someone >> who knows? (g) >> >> Cheryl > >I'm assuming you're referring to a Mac user. But to find out what's >available, one only need look as far as Google. That said, Reunion 10 >was recently released and is a major improvement over Reunion 9. It's >pretty much solidified itself as the best genealogy software for Mac >users. >-- >Steve W. Jackson >Montgomery, Alabama I'd suggest you look on Eastman's On-line Genealogy "forum". ISTR there was mention there a month or so back of a new Mac geni program. I didn't pay much attention because, ta DA!, I don't use MacOS (or Gates Universal Computer Virus, for that matter). Senescing Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing. Ralph Waldo Emerson

On Friday, August 3, 2012 5:09:13 AM UTC+10, singhals wrote: > Is there now an alternative to Reunion for MAC users? I > > recently had a MAC user ask about a new program whose name > > has absolutely fled my memory, so I thought I'd ask someone > > who knows? (g) > > > > Cheryl Any clues here? http://genealogy-software-review.toptenreviews.com/mac-genealogy-software/ Paul

In article <mailman.2.1343934555.3838.gencmp@rootsweb.com>, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > Is there now an alternative to Reunion for MAC users? I > recently had a MAC user ask about a new program whose name > has absolutely fled my memory, so I thought I'd ask someone > who knows? (g) > > Cheryl I'm assuming you're referring to a Mac user. But to find out what's available, one only need look as far as Google. That said, Reunion 10 was recently released and is a major improvement over Reunion 9. It's pretty much solidified itself as the best genealogy software for Mac users. -- Steve W. Jackson Montgomery, Alabama

Is there now an alternative to Reunion for MAC users? I recently had a MAC user ask about a new program whose name has absolutely fled my memory, so I thought I'd ask someone who knows? (g) Cheryl

Well, having photographed and indexed many headstones in many cemeteries, I would make the following observations. Sometimes, it is simple. One grave, one memorial, one person, one photo. But other times it is much more complicated. A group of graves sharing a number of memorials mentioning a number of people, which usually require a number of photos at a variety of zoomings. Sometimes you get multiple memorials on a single grave, say a headstone saying "W. Smith" and a vase with "in loving memory of Bill" handwritten, and all sorts of variations. When it is not a simple situation, our general principle is to take the first photo wide-angle to capture the full extent of what we think is the full group of graves/memorials/etc. Then take the close-up shots (in some kind of vaguely logical order) of the various components. The idea is the wide-angle photo should make it possible to be able to see the physical relationships between the close-up photos. And of course for the very small inscriptions or nearly illegible inscriptions, there is often a need for a further set of very-close-up photos, but again the principle is that you can identify where you are photographing from the less-close-up photos. Having done that, we then caption each photo of the "group" with the transcription of all the names, dates, places, relationships we can see in the whole group (we don't bother with "in loving memory", etc). So, to use my example above, we would have one photo showing a grave with a headstone and a vase. We would then have a 2nd photo of the headstone, perhaps with some close-ups of illegible bits of the text. We would then have a photo of the inscription on the vase. All of them would be captioned "W. (Bill) Smith, died blah blah blah". We then plug all of the captions into our indexing tool for use by our search engine. Now it might be that, in our example, there were two people buried in the grave, say W. Smith and his son Bill. There is no way for us to know if it's W. (Bill) Smith or two of them. But whether we caption it as one or two people "W. Smith, died .... ; Bill" doesn't make any difference, all the terms are in the index and a search for "bill smith" will find them either way. If you try to organise the MIs as a set of people as opposed to a set of words, you have to work out how many people there were, exactly what their names area, which dates relate to which person, all of which isn't always straightforward. Instead we focus on trying to capture "what you would have seen if you had been in the cemetery" and use the index as a way into that sequence of photos. The photos remain in the sequence they were taken, so people can move back and forwards through them in case our sense of the "groupings" isn't right. We try to make as few as "interpretations" as possible about what we are seeing. Instead we try to present the cemetery digitally so the researcher can see for themselves what was there, what was written, and, using additional information they are likely to posess, come up with the best interpretation of the information provided by looking at the cemetery. In my opinion it is very difficult to produce a good information model of monumental inscriptions because you are dealing with a snapshot in time of a physical environment. In contrast, a burial register is much more straightforward, a sequence of burial events (usually involving one person at a time). The mistake I believe a lot of people make is in trying to present monumental inscriptions as a poor man's burial register. It leads to "over-interpretation" of the evidence by the MI team, instead of leaving it to the researcher. Kerry

On 07-11-2012 22:03, Kerry Raymond wrote: > But other times it is much more complicated. A group of graves sharing a > number of memorials mentioning a number of people, which usually require > a number of photos at a variety of zoomings. Sometimes you get multiple > memorials on a single grave, say a headstone saying "W. Smith" and a > vase with "in loving memory of Bill" handwritten, and all sorts of > variations. I came across an obelisk with names on three or four sides, fifteen or twenty on each side. (Only a year ago, but I have already forgotten the details) One of the pictures I took: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=34442980 -- Wes Groleau “There ain't nothin' in this world that's worth being a snot over.” — Larry Wall

pblair wrote: > Out in this part of the world, we have MIs that range from small tombs to wooden stakes with numbers written on them. > Although there may be more than one person to a grave, there is usually (but not always) one inscription per person. I'm not sure I follow this last bit. Do you mean that there may sometimes be more than one inscription per person? > The idea is to record the inscriptions before weather and vandals ruin things. > The broad idea is a photo, plus the words, or the best anyone can make of the words. In our climate, some of the words just vanish! > > So: a pic, a transcription, a reference number (shared if need be with others from the same plot), Maybe provision for multiple pics? e.g. multiple elevations of a larger tomb, close-ups of details, different lighting conditions which might show up the lettering better. > a location (as broad or detailed as needed) and a reference person (who captured the info). And space for comments. > > I might have to do it myself. If the bigger companies (what's left of them) can't see a profit in such an item, that will be the task! > It depends on exactly what you want to do. You say "we" in your second post. That tends to suggest a need for some form of shared access over the net which raises all sorts of questions of securing your data - there's more than one sort of vandal. If you don't need that then maybe a simple Access database would be enough. -- Ian The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang at austonley org uk

> I'm not sure I follow this last bit. Do you mean that there may > sometimes be more than one inscription per person? Usually none or one - but on checking, there is one with 2. > > Maybe provision for multiple pics? e.g. multiple elevations of a larger > tomb, close-ups of details, different lighting conditions which might > show up the lettering better. A useful suggestion. > It depends on exactly what you want to do. You say "we" in your second > post. That tends to suggest a need for some form of shared access over > the net which raises all sorts of questions of securing your data - > there's more than one sort of vandal. If you don't need that then maybe > a simple Access database would be enough. > A fact of life these days. My original plan was to make it available by password to family only. That may get modified in time. I would also like to have some explanatory pages, so WordPress or Joomla! might be wrapped around things, to add detail and a bit of eye candy, provided I don't overreach myself! :-) Paul

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 09:26:47 -0400, singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote: > From my unfortunate experience walking a cemetery that >turned out to be 4 times as large as I had guessed (g), I >can tell you that no matter how thorough your brainstorming >seems or how long you spent on it, you WILL find at least >one MI that won't fit; I therefore recommend VERY strongly >the presence of a free-form field to accommodate that one >and any odd-balls that almost-but-not-quite fit. As a >possible example of things I wouldn't have thought to plan >for -- one grave had a square pillar as marker; 3 sides of >the pillar had 2 names each; the 4th side had 6 names; AND >there was a flat marker with 3 more names...15 names, one >gravesite. About 20 years ago I tried to devise a program for recording MIs and we did exactly that - had a free-form field for recording it. Thyere was another free-form field for notes, which could describe the shape, form or condition of the stone. But others have produced better programs since then. We also had another table for recording names, as an index. -- Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Friday, July 6, 2012 11:26:47 PM UTC+10, singhals wrote: > pblair wrote: > > On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:01:50 AM UTC+10, singhals wrote: > >> pblair wrote: > >>> Does anyone have any experience/comments/recommendations for a software program to allow MI records to be computerized and then displayed on line, please? > >> > >> I have a question first. > >> > >> What makes Find-a-Grave, Billiongraves, Interment.net, et > >> alii, unsuitable for the purpose? > >> > >> Cheryl > > > > It's to be a local publication under our own control. Some of the above may fit the bill, but we would like to see what else is on offer. > > Maybe 10 years ago someone (on /this/? list) started to > write a cemetery-recording program that was to have been a > cross between the commercial cemetery-admin software and the > "walking a cemetery" form available in several books in the > USofA. I can't say I remember who it was but I also don't > remember any progress being reported. > > I assume none of the things you found via Google or > cyndislist work for you, either? > > From my unfortunate experience walking a cemetery that > turned out to be 4 times as large as I had guessed (g), I > can tell you that no matter how thorough your brainstorming > seems or how long you spent on it, you WILL find at least > one MI that won't fit; I therefore recommend VERY strongly > the presence of a free-form field to accommodate that one > and any odd-balls that almost-but-not-quite fit. As a > possible example of things I wouldn't have thought to plan > for -- one grave had a square pillar as marker; 3 sides of > the pillar had 2 names each; the 4th side had 6 names; AND > there was a flat marker with 3 more names...15 names, one > gravesite. > > FWIW > > Cheryl Thank you, Cheryl. Out in this part of the world, we have MIs that range from small tombs to wooden stakes with numbers written on them. Although there may be more than one person to a grave, there is usually (but not always) one inscription per person. The idea is to record the inscriptions before weather and vandals ruin things. The broad idea is a photo, plus the words, or the best anyone can make of the words. In our climate, some of the words just vanish! So: a pic, a transcription, a reference number (shared if need be with others from the same plot), a location (as broad or detailed as needed) and a reference person (who captured the info). And space for comments. I might have to do it myself. If the bigger companies (what's left of them) can't see a profit in such an item, that will be the task! Paul

pblair wrote: > On Thursday, July 5, 2012 1:01:50 AM UTC+10, singhals wrote: >> pblair wrote: >>> Does anyone have any experience/comments/recommendations for a software program to allow MI records to be computerized and then displayed on line, please? >> >> I have a question first. >> >> What makes Find-a-Grave, Billiongraves, Interment.net, et >> alii, unsuitable for the purpose? >> >> Cheryl > > It's to be a local publication under our own control. Some of the above may fit the bill, but we would like to see what else is on offer. Maybe 10 years ago someone (on /this/? list) started to write a cemetery-recording program that was to have been a cross between the commercial cemetery-admin software and the "walking a cemetery" form available in several books in the USofA. I can't say I remember who it was but I also don't remember any progress being reported. I assume none of the things you found via Google or cyndislist work for you, either? From my unfortunate experience walking a cemetery that turned out to be 4 times as large as I had guessed (g), I can tell you that no matter how thorough your brainstorming seems or how long you spent on it, you WILL find at least one MI that won't fit; I therefore recommend VERY strongly the presence of a free-form field to accommodate that one and any odd-balls that almost-but-not-quite fit. As a possible example of things I wouldn't have thought to plan for -- one grave had a square pillar as marker; 3 sides of the pillar had 2 names each; the 4th side had 6 names; AND there was a flat marker with 3 more names...15 names, one gravesite. FWIW Cheryl

The program I was looking for was "Scan to Cam" http://www.cam-to-scan.com Thanks, Graham On 25 June 2012 10:49, Graham Ward <graham.ward@gmx.net> wrote: > In the past I have use a small document scanning application that had a > neat function to stretch the scanned document by placing a series of dots > around the edge of the document. Thereby correcting irregular scanning > distortion, typically before using OCR. > > Is anyone familiar with the program? > > Thanks > > Graham >

On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 21:23:32 -0400 (EDT), agh3rd@aol.com wrote in soc.genealogy.computing: >This whole thread simply illustrates exactly why abbreviations should >*never* be used in genealogical work or discussions. In Québec, m is common for marriages. In a France work, m was used for mort (death) and x for marriages ! On my site, I use no abbreviation. But if I ever print the content, I will have to use abbreviations and short names for places. Denis -- Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG) Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/ French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/ Sur cédérom à 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780

On 07-05-2012 21:23, agh3rd@aol.com wrote: > This whole thread simply illustrates exactly why abbreviations should > *never* be used in genealogical work or discussions. Except when they are in the original source. :-) -- Wes Groleau Why does everyone call it a “fanny pack" ? When was the last time you saw one on a fanny?

On 07-05-2012 05:29, shmartonak@ticnet.com wrote: > I dunno. I've been at this for 20 years. First time I've ever seen the abreviation "MI". Live and learn. Thirty-plus years here, but ditto on the second part. And the third. -- Wes Groleau “Missing a train is only painful if you run after it!” — Nassim Nicholas Taleb

This whole thread simply illustrates exactly why abbreviations should *never* be used in genealogical work or discussions. -----Original Message----- From: Charlie Hoffpauir <invalid@invalid.com> To: gencmp <gencmp@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thu, Jul 5, 2012 7:40 pm Subject: Re: Software to record/display MIs online On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 19:46:41 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:04:27 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir <invalid@invalid.com> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 02:29:21 -0700 (PDT), shmartonak@ticnet.com wrote: >> >>>On Wednesday, July 4, 2012 11:38:37 PM UTC-5, Steve Hayes wrote: > >>>> I'm quite sur[prised that an experienced genealogist doesn't know that MI >>>> stands for "Monumental Inscription", which includes tombstones, war memorials, >>>> plaques in churches etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa >>>> Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com >>>> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> >>>I dunno. I've been at this for 20 years. First time I've ever seen the abreviation "MI". Live and learn. >> >>Well, 20 years for me as well, and this thread is the first time I've >>seen the abbreviation. But then, I'm from Louisiana. >> >>But "offficially", is it Memorial Inscription or Monumental >>Inscription (both have been given in this thread)? Is it defined >>anywhere? A Google search doesn't help at all. > >A quick Google search produced these links: > >http://www.british-genealogy.com/churches-graves/monumental-inscriptions .html > >http://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Libr/MIs/MIslist.htm > >http://www.gravematters.org.uk/ > >http://www.scottish-monumental-inscriptions.com/ > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monumental_inscription OK so it's "Monumental Inscription".. but a quick look at those links produced only one that also used the abbriviation MI. And if I'd said "But then, I'm from LA" would you have immediately thought Louisiana.... or Los Angeles? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENCMP-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message