From: <rom...@ya...> - 2007-06-28 12:23:40
Attachments:
exporter_filter
|
Hi, Yesterday, I fought against GRAMPS !!! I tried to filter my data for my uncle. He uses Ubuntu and GRAMPS. Fine, I planned sending to him a gramps.gpkg with all media objects. He doesn't care on my father pedigree side. I made some filters but was not able to export with filters, just GEDCOM export can filtering. Also, seems that RESI event with media OBJEct are ignored on GRAMPS 2.2.8 import (missing on address structure) 1 RESI 2 OBJE 3 FORM jpeg 3 TITL Strasbourg 3 FILE media/Strasbourg.jpg 65 existing media object references are ignored after a gedcom import on GRAMPS 2.2.8 :( I don't want to re-open RESI/ADDR issue (look at wiki) Fortunatly, all is OK on unstable GRAMPS 2.3 !!! Great GEDCOM management on trunk ;) Now, the last problem : allow filter for XML export ... No glade files, no plugins (except WriteXML on GrampsDBUtils) I look at gramps.pot references and find it : src/Exporter.py Seems you planned to add filter :) > def native_export(self,database,filename,person,callback=None): > """ > Native database export. > In the future, filter and other options may be added. I copied existing previous references and made a dirty patch. (vbox, get_widget) looks like gtk/glade. Does it could work together with current code, I don't think so. I just added comments because I need more informations to find how all that is set up. Can be that somebody interested too, could put that in order or rewrite a part... Unless that introduced errors on export :( Best regards, -- Jérôme Rapinat |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-06-28 18:24:10
|
Jerome, this is something I wanted to add to 2.3 when my holiday is finished. Does this patch already work? Benny Quoting J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me <rom...@ya...>: > Hi, > > > Yesterday, I fought against GRAMPS !!! > > I tried to filter my data for my uncle. > He uses Ubuntu and GRAMPS. > > Fine, I planned sending to him a gramps.gpkg with all media objects. > He doesn't care on my father pedigree side. > I made some filters but was not able to export with filters, just > GEDCOM export can filtering. > > Also, seems that RESI event with media OBJEct are ignored on GRAMPS > 2.2.8 import (missing on address structure) > > 1 RESI > 2 OBJE > 3 FORM jpeg > 3 TITL Strasbourg > 3 FILE media/Strasbourg.jpg > > 65 existing media object references are ignored after a gedcom import > on GRAMPS 2.2.8 :( > I don't want to re-open RESI/ADDR issue (look at wiki) > > Fortunatly, all is OK on unstable GRAMPS 2.3 !!! > Great GEDCOM management on trunk ;) > > Now, the last problem : allow filter for XML export ... > No glade files, no plugins (except WriteXML on GrampsDBUtils) > I look at gramps.pot references and find it : src/Exporter.py > > Seems you planned to add filter :) > > > def native_export(self,database,filename,person,callback=3DNone): >> """ >> Native database export. >> In the future, filter and other options may be added. > > I copied existing previous references and made a dirty patch. > (vbox, get_widget) looks like gtk/glade. > Does it could work together with current code, I don't think so. > > I just added comments because I need more informations to find how > all that is set up. > > Can be that somebody interested too, could put that in order or > rewrite a part... Unless that introduced errors on export :( > > > > > Best regards, > > > -- > J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me Rapinat > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: Alex R. <sh...@gr...> - 2007-06-28 21:35:24
|
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 20:24 +0200, bm...@ca... wrote: > Jerome, >=20 > this is something I wanted to add to 2.3 when my holiday is finished. > Does this patch already work? There's more to this than seems at first glance. Basically, the following questions arise: 1. If person matches the filter, but the spouse does not, do we export the family? 2. If we do, should it be missing the spouse? OR replaced with some generic placeholder name? 3. If the spouse matches but the kids don't, what to do with the family? 4. What if kids match but the spouse does not? 5. Should we export the source if the only reference comes from the person that is not exported? I could go on and on. The GEDCOM export makes some choices, but they may not necessarily be the optimal. We should work out the policy of what to do, and then implement it in all exports. Ideally, with a single piece of code that all exporters would inherit from. Alex --=20 Alexander Roitman http://gramps-project.org |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-06-29 19:28:38
|
What to export is indeed important, and I do not agree with jerome that a family is exported if one person is in the filter you want to export. The problems go further with which sources/places/notes to export? It will need some carefull design and the 'filter' system is not fully adequate. I see two options: 1/working with many options the user can choose, 2/working with combined filters: person filter, family filter, place filter, .... with some preset values. My preference goes to 2, but for families options are needed nevertheless as that is a complicated matter. Benny ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: Lou S. <lsp...@gm...> - 2007-06-29 19:48:22
|
I think the end-user should have a choice with these issues. What about adding another tab for options such as this. Do you have an idea of the number of all possible options? Regards, Lou On 6/28/07, Alex Roitman <sh...@gr... > wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 20:24 +0200, bm...@ca... wrote: > > Jerome, > > > > this is something I wanted to add to 2.3 when my holiday is finished. > > Does this patch already work? > > There's more to this than seems at first glance. > Basically, the following questions arise: > > 1. If person matches the filter, but the spouse does not, > do we export the family? > 2. If we do, should it be missing the spouse? OR replaced > with some generic placeholder name? > 3. If the spouse matches but the kids don't, what to > do with the family? > 4. What if kids match but the spouse does not? > 5. Should we export the source if the only reference > comes from the person that is not exported? > > I could go on and on. The GEDCOM export makes some choices, > but they may not necessarily be the optimal. We should > work out the policy of what to do, and then implement > it in all exports. Ideally, with a single piece of code > that all exporters would inherit from. > > Alex > > -- > Alexander Roitman http://gramps-project.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Gramps-devel mailing list > Gra...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel > > > |
From: <bm...@ca...> - 2007-06-30 17:03:00
|
Jerome, I agree that what you want must be possible, and is better for research. However, I envision also this situation: I want to share part of my database but do not want people born after 1900 to appear in what I export. Then no peop= le born after that day should be in the GEDCOM/XML regardless of being a child= of a person which is exported. The family events and such can still be exporte= d, just not all children. Then there are two possibilities: export a child wit= h name: 'not exported' to indicate the fellow researcher you have that information, or just don't export anything. Benny Quoting J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me <rom...@ya...>: > Benny, > > >> What to export is indeed important, and I do not agree with jerome >> that a family is exported if one person is in the filter you want to >> export. > > It is what arrives with GEDCOM export, no ? > Family references on individual tokens. > Maybe, I will have to titrate: GEDCOM vs GRAMPS XML 2-1 !!! > > Family informations prolongs/adds personal informations. > We envisage to share our informations with GRAMPS users (not our > banks co-ordinates, there is privacy option for that), if these half > information is cut down, research will have to be remade and > information feedback even more delicate. > > If the individual is marked for export, then recipient will be able > to search its spouse or children if they are not exported with > individual. On the other hand, if there is no family, an additional > research will maybe be needed. Lastly, to have a family reference is > an asset to check the data before merging them. These families are > nodes or joints, there is less possibilities of being mistaken when a > family is merged/amalgamated. > > > > bm...@ca... a =C3=A9crit : >> What to export is indeed important, and I do not agree with jerome >> that a family >> is exported if one person is in the filter you want to export. >> >> The problems go further with which sources/places/notes to export? >> >> It will need some carefull design and the 'filter' system is not >> fully adequate. >> I see two options: >> 1/working with many options the user can choose, >> 2/working with combined filters: person filter, family filter, place fil= ter, >> .... >> with some preset values. >> >> My preference goes to 2, but for families options are needed nevertheles= s as >> that is a complicated matter. >> >> Benny > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. |
From: <rom...@ya...> - 2007-07-01 08:54:52
|
Benny, > However, I envision also this situation: I want to share part of my > database but do not want people born after 1900 to appear in what I export. Then no people > born after that day should be in the GEDCOM/XML regardless of being a child of a person which is exported. The family events and such can still be exported, > just not all children. Then there are two possibilities: export a child with name: 'not exported' to indicate the fellow researcher you have that information, or just don't export anything. It is privacy issue. On NarrativeWebSite, GRAMPS offers the choice for checking "_don't export people xx years after death" or don't export people marked "_private". GRAMPS already use this type of rules. Maybe using "still alive" search for export and a check box "_do not export people born after xxx" ? 'not exported' should be used ? I don't know ! If there is 100 'not exported' childs, then recipient will have 100 individuals named 'not exported' ... True, they exist. But everyone has rights to anonymity. With less than 100 years, if someone don't want to appear somewhere, it is his rights in France (childbirth under X, ...). Also, organizations who control our civil freedoms exists. Always using genetic pointings as in England, non merci. (In theory) alive people wish to join your data but you cannot find them, except if you have a direct relationship. It is not bad, that pushes to share ;) |
From: <rom...@ya...> - 2007-06-29 09:55:16
|
Benny, > Does this patch already work? This will be black magic !!! I just copied existing code and filters reference from ExportGedcom plugin. Exporter.py call Widget or box, but I don't know where they are coming from :( Seems to be GTK or glade references, but I am not certain. Also, it is a generic export dialog, it is written for multiples pages (next<->previous) and several links which escape to me. What should be added ? where ? > this is something I wanted to add to 2.3 fine :) Then maybe you could ignore the (dirty) patch ... In any case, I had difficulties to find the file which created the dialog for XML export :( > when my holiday is finished. You are connected to Internet during your holidays ... good holidays !!! |
From: <rom...@ya...> - 2007-06-29 10:47:30
|
Alex, > I could go on and on. The GEDCOM export makes some choices, > but they may not necessarily be the optimal. We should > work out the policy of what to do, and then implement > it in all exports. Ideally, with a single piece of code > that all exporters would inherit from. Why not one filter (bookmarked or marked people) Users will have choice: * mark people who should be exported * mark people who should not be exported and invert values Also, we need to "mark" people who match a <filter> on DB. http://bugs.gramps-project.org/view.php?id=711 Alex Roitman a écrit : > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 20:24 +0200, bm...@ca... wrote: >> Jerome, >> >> this is something I wanted to add to 2.3 when my holiday is finished. >> Does this patch already work? > > There's more to this than seems at first glance. > Basically, the following questions arise: > > 1. If person matches the filter, but the spouse does not, > do we export the family? > 2. If we do, should it be missing the spouse? OR replaced > with some generic placeholder name? > 3. If the spouse matches but the kids don't, what to > do with the family? > 4. What if kids match but the spouse does not? > 5. Should we export the source if the only reference > comes from the person that is not exported? > > I could go on and on. The GEDCOM export makes some choices, > but they may not necessarily be the optimal. We should > work out the policy of what to do, and then implement > it in all exports. Ideally, with a single piece of code > that all exporters would inherit from. > > Alex |
From: Alex R. <sh...@gr...> - 2007-06-29 16:44:01
|
J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me, On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 12:53 +0200, J=C3=A9r=C3=B4me wrote: > Why not one filter (bookmarked or marked people) >=20 > Users will have choice: >=20 > * mark people who should be exported > * mark people who should not be exported and invert values Yes, one filter. My questions stand: > > 1. If person matches the filter, but the spouse does not, > > do we export the family? Do we or do we not? Family is not a person. The filter marks the person, it says nothing about the family. If Homer Simspon is exported and Marge is not, do we export their family? > > 2. If we do, should it be missing the spouse? OR replaced > > with some generic placeholder name? Do we replace "Marge Simpson" with "Replaced Spouse" or do we export family with husband only and no wife? And so on. Alex --=20 Alexander Roitman http://gramps-project.org |
From: <rom...@ya...> - 2007-06-29 18:16:12
|
> The filter marks the person, it says nothing about the family. True. Also, maybe an other filter who marks families on List Family View ? > If person matches the filter, but the spouse does not, do we export the family? I think, with or without spouse if person is referenced on a family, GRAMPS exports the family core. If spouse don't match, then family without spouse. > 2. If we do, should it be missing the spouse? OR replaced with some generic placeholder name? I think no spouse reference, just status on family !!! Seems not to be like privacy issue ... If it is possible to have just the "real" relation (married, custom or unknown) on family without spouse id, then this should be enought. We will know all on person status in the family without knowing the name of the spouse. "Real" because GRAMPS need to verify relation on family. If we keep default value for family relation, sometimes family relation without known spouse will be noted as "married" ... > 3. If the spouse matches but the kids don't, what to do with the family? Exporting the family > 4. What if kids match but the spouse does not? Exporting the family > 5. Should we export the source if the only reference comes from the person that is not exported? Seems there is backlink references on most primary indices. If family or person are referenced, GRAMPS may export primary indices (events, sources, media object references). Alex Roitman a écrit : > Jérôme, > > On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 12:53 +0200, Jérôme wrote: >> Why not one filter (bookmarked or marked people) >> >> Users will have choice: >> >> * mark people who should be exported >> * mark people who should not be exported and invert values > > Yes, one filter. My questions stand: > >>> 1. If person matches the filter, but the spouse does not, >>> do we export the family? > > Do we or do we not? Family is not a person. The filter marks > the person, it says nothing about the family. If Homer Simspon > is exported and Marge is not, do we export their family? > >>> 2. If we do, should it be missing the spouse? OR replaced >>> with some generic placeholder name? > > Do we replace "Marge Simpson" with "Replaced Spouse" or do > we export family with husband only and no wife? > > > And so on. > > Alex |
From: <rom...@ya...> - 2007-06-30 06:31:50
|
Benny, > What to export is indeed important, and I do not agree with jerome that a family is exported if one person is in the filter you want to export. It is what arrives with GEDCOM export, no ? Family references on individual tokens. Maybe, I will have to titrate: GEDCOM vs GRAMPS XML 2-1 !!! Family informations prolongs/adds personal informations. We envisage to share our informations with GRAMPS users (not our banks co-ordinates, there is privacy option for that), if these half information is cut down, research will have to be remade and information feedback even more delicate. If the individual is marked for export, then recipient will be able to search its spouse or children if they are not exported with individual. On the other hand, if there is no family, an additional research will maybe be needed. Lastly, to have a family reference is an asset to check the data before merging them. These families are nodes or joints, there is less possibilities of being mistaken when a family is merged/amalgamated. bm...@ca... a écrit : > What to export is indeed important, and I do not agree with jerome that > a family > is exported if one person is in the filter you want to export. > > The problems go further with which sources/places/notes to export? > > It will need some carefull design and the 'filter' system is not fully > adequate. > I see two options: > 1/working with many options the user can choose, > 2/working with combined filters: person filter, family filter, place filter, > .... > with some preset values. > > My preference goes to 2, but for families options are needed nevertheless as > that is a complicated matter. > > Benny |