http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128 The Behold User Forum Topic: 5.5.1 compliant GEDCOM file http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/../beholddiscuss.gif Posts by Louis Kessler are Copyright 2000-2013 Louis Kessler, All Rights Reserved. Posts by others belong to the people who made them. en http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-609 Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:51:18 GMT lkessler 609@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>Yes, the difficulty in checking GEDCOM is that what is valid in one version is not necessary in another. And the specs are not unambiguous and miss things in their specifications. </p> <p>The bigger problem occurs when a program writes GEDCOM 5.5 and says it is 5.5.1 or vice versa. </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-608 Sun, 02 Jun 2013 15:23:28 GMT hsmyers 608@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>Louis,</p> <p>I got to looking at the list while repairing it and noticed that the line that says:</p> <p>*** Line 36: Tag NOTE is not allowed under SUBM</p> <p>is quite clearly in-correct! Certainly allowed under 5.6 and 5.5.1 (which I use) but not allowed under 5.5. Makes me wonder how they parse the GEDC.VERS&lt;VERSION_NUMBER&gt;? I always (for no particular reason that I remember) simply use a dotted numeric string; 5.5.1. I believe that I got the idea from PAF, likewise from the example show on pages 60, 74 and 78 of the 5.5 standard, the 5.5.1 standard and the 'draft' 5.6 standard. I might ask them come to think of it! </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-604 Sun, 02 Jun 2013 04:02:40 GMT lkessler 604@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>Thanks for that info, hsm. After I add full GEDCOM checking to Behold, it should catch these errors and more.</p> <p>Louis </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-603 Sat, 01 Jun 2013 21:12:31 GMT hsmyers 603@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>Following your excellent advice here is the report from GedInline:</p> <p>*** Line 11: Invalid content for CHAR tag: 'ANSI' is not a valid &lt;CHARACTER_SET&gt;<br /> *** Line 36: Tag NOTE is not allowed under SUBM<br /> *** Line 51: Invalid content for QUAY tag: '4' is not a valid &lt;CERTAINTY_ASSESSMENT&gt;<br /> *** Line 73: Invalid content for QUAY tag: '4' is not a valid &lt;CERTAINTY_ASSESSMENT&gt;<br /> *** Line 9946: Line contains tab character, not allowed under GEDCOM rules<br /> *** Line 13032: Line contains tab character, not allowed under GEDCOM rules<br /> *** Line 13322: Line contains tab character, not allowed under GEDCOM rules<br /> *** Line 14296: Line contains tab character, not allowed under GEDCOM rules<br /> *** Line 43757: Line contains tab character, not allowed under GEDCOM rules</p> <p>I've no idea of how the tabs wound up in the file, but they will be gone shortly :) Likewise a fix for the rest, easy enough to do once you know what is what!</p> <p>I notice that this is an addition to a older post, but I thought you would like the information to add to the list of clean file versus validators. VgedX only reports un-referenced individuals as do you as mentioned. You might at some point add a 'take me to the problem feature'---just a thought :) </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-388 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:32:06 GMT lkessler 388@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>What I'll probably do is:</p> <p>0 HEAD<br /> 1 SOUR Behold<br /> 2 VERS 1.0.4<br /> 2 NAME Behold version 1.0.4, 23 Jan 2012 </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-387 Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:23:40 GMT brett 387@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>Louis</p> <p>Does the GEDCOM character limit include the TAG?</p> <p>If no, would this be suitable for vs and date?</p> <p>VERS xx.x.x mm-dd-yy</p> <p>Brett </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-386 Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:01:11 GMT lkessler 386@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>Brett:</p> <p>Good catch. Behold was not reporting extra spaces between date parts. Next version will. </p> <p>Comparing the GED-inline and VGedX reports you sent me, I see that GED-inline reports all 7 problems that VGedX does but with better messages, and then finds 17 more problems, most of which are CONT tags where they are not allowed.</p> <p>Darrin won't like the first error though. "Invalid content for SOUR tag: 'The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding' is not a valid &lt;APPROVED_SYSTEM_ID&gt;". It is not checking against a list, but is simply reporting that the maximum length allowed for &lt;APPROVED_SYSTEM_ID&gt; is 20 characters. </p> <p>I have a similar issue with the Version_Number, where I'd like to put both the Behold version number and the date in that field, but only 15 characters are allowed.</p> <p>Behold in Version 1.5 should catch all the errors that Ged-inline and VGedX report and maybe more. And then Behold will convert the invalid GEDCOM input into valid GEDCOM output.</p> <p>The warning that VGedX gives that record 0 @I1884@ INDI is not referenced is already handled by Behold - not as a message - but it is places in the Unconnected Individuals section of the Everything Report.</p> <p>Louis </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-385 Sun, 11 Mar 2012 01:44:30 GMT brett 385@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>OK, so I did jump too early.</p> <p>I have validated through the above and also Genealogica Grafica and GenMatcher.</p> <p>I will report all errors in an email.</p> <p>In the meantime, the one error of most interest is:</p> <p>Invalid content for DATE tag: '28 APR 1997' is not a valid &lt;DATE_VALUE&gt;</p> <p>This does not error in Behold. Note the 2 spaces between APR and 1997.</p> <p>Thanks<br /> Brett </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-384 Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:37:51 GMT lkessler 384@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>Brett:</p> <p>Don't jump for joy just yet. Behold won't do complete GEDCOM checking until Version 1.5 and right now it lets a few things go.</p> <p>You should also try a couple of other validators: VGedX at <a href="http://ancestorsnow.com/tools/vgedx.php" rel="nofollow">http://ancestorsnow.com/tools/vgedx.php</a> and GED-inline at <a href="http://ged-inline.elasticbeanstalk.com/validate" rel="nofollow">http://ged-inline.elasticbeanstalk.com/validate</a> </p> <p>I wouldn't mind hearing what they catch that Behold didn't.</p> <p>Louis </p> General Discussion http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=128#post-383 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:53:13 GMT brett 383@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/ <p>After several years, much assistance from Behold's great GEDCOM validation, advice from Louis and support from Darrin and the User Group of The Next Generation of Genealogy Sitebuilding (TNG), I now have a GEDCOM exported file which meets 5.5.1.</p> <p>What a pleasure it was to see<br /> 'No problems to report.'<br /> in the File Information section of The Everything Report and<br /> 'Summary of all GEDCOM Messages<br /> No problems to report.'<br /> in the log file.</p> <p>Thanks all for the assistance.</p> <p>Brett </p> General Discussion