Hello everyone,
I would like to create a report from a single descendant tree to publish 4 independent descendant trees named A to D (4 branches = 4 chapters ).
The first A tree will be considered as the eldest branch. This tree will include all descendants except the descendants of B, C and D, knowing that all individuals in branches B, C and D are descendants of their common ancestor at the root of A. On the other hand, I have no problem making up branches B, C and D since these are simple searches/selections.
Questions :
1 - What query do I need to run to create group A?
2 - Can we export these 4 trees, as independent trees, to a GEDCOM ?
3 - If we use the publication tool, can the 4 groups be directly transformed into 4 report chapters with global index ?
Thank you in advance for your help
Let’s take your questions in reverse order.
- RM’s Book tool can make four chapters with a global index. To do so, all four of your trees will need to in the same database. So it’s not like you can GEDCOM the four separate trees to four separate RM databases and still make a book with four chapters and a global index. Everything really will need to be in the same database.
- Without going into the details, yes you can export these 4 trees as independent trees to a GEDCOM (either to a single GEDCOM or to four separate GEDCOM’s). But I’m not sure why you would want to do so because you want four chapters in the same book with a global index.
- The query to create group A would be to select all the descendants of A, then as a part of the same query, unselect the descendants of B, unselect all the descendants of C, and unselect the descendants of D. It’s actually pretty easy.
So far, so good, and it sounds like it might be pretty easy to accomplish your project. However, there is a little glitch. Namely, RM’s descendant reports cannot be filtered by a group. Rather, they are just descendants of a particular person. So your B chapter and your C chapter and your D chapter would be easy and you wouldn’t even need to define a group. Your B chapter would just be descendants of B. You C chapter would just be descendants of C. And your D chapter would just be descendants of D.
The only way I can think of to make your A chapter is temporarily to disconnect B and C and D from their respective parents. This would have no adverse impact on the chapters for B and C and D. And it would make sure that the B tree and the C tree and the D tree did not appear in your A chapter. That might or might not be good enough for your needs. Notice that you wouldn’t even need a group for A because the A chapter would just be the descendants of A and would not include the descendants of B and C and D because you would have temporarily disconnected them.
If I were doing this project, I think I would do it slightly differently. I wouldn’t temporarily disconnect anything because the temporary disconnects would later have to be reconnected. Instead, i would define my book in my existing database without disconnecting anybody. I would test the book, but I wouldn’t actually make it. Then I would make a temporary copy of my existing database as a reporting database. In the reporting database, I would disconnect B and C and D from their parents and then run my report. When I was really done with the report, I would delete the reporting database and resume using my existing database.
In the reporting database, it might be useful to have the person B and the person C and the person D in the A chapter. This would not be the whole B tree and the whole C tree and the whole D tree - just the individuals B, C, and D with no further descendants. So after disconnecting them as described, I might put a second copy of just person B without any descendants and person C without any descendants and person D without any descendants back the family for A. But that would certainly be your call, depending on how you want the report to look. All these shenanigans would be unnecessary if RM’s descendant reports could be filtered by group.
Thanks Jerry for your advices
I retain the idea of making a copy of my database and disconnecting the B, C and D.
But I’ll come back to the question of exporting to a gedcom.
I’m not sure I’d use RM’s functions for reports, as the transcription of the structure in Word is sketchy. I’ve done some tests with GenoPress 2, which is closer to Word’s structure. So I don’t want to prevent myself from using third-party software for page layout.
If I understand correctly, I’ll use the copy of the RM file with the disconnections and export the whole thing?
But I agree with you. A group strategy would be much simpler.
Being curious, I searched for GenoPress 2 and found results for GenoPresse 2 in French. It appears to be now-orohaned software with no support and possibly a licence verification barrier if installed on a new computer. A US company appears to have taken over the Internet Domain Name “GenoPresse.com” and possibly trademarked it. So you might not want to count on that software as a solution.
Indeed, it seems that the canadian author of this software has abandoned his work and perhaps passed away. I bought licenses for this product (version 1 and version 2) four years ago. The first advantage for me is that it writes sentences in French from a GEDCOM, a function that doesn’t exist in RM. The second is that it has a nice layout (e.g.: automatically generated partial tree diagrams, no useless line break codes to delete and a nice layout).
To return to my previous question, if I were to expect improvements from RM it would be, with the help of the group concept, to be able to create report chapters, from the same descending tree, by creating independent branches to be used for both the RM report and for exporting gedcom, with as many trees as branches, even if there are overlapping persons at the junction of the branches (at the very least, the author of the branch would be found both in the starting tree as the son of and in the branch as the originator). Is this technically possible ?
Daniel Seguin Conceptor of GenoPresse,Montréal, QC genopresse.
PS https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://twitter.com/genopresse&ved=2ahUKEwie0tS9-rOJAxVxTaQEHTNdDTgQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1ehKReVkz_9IVqbicCPr0g