I agree with you about the practicality of the e-reader in all areas except genealogy, where I haven’t adopted it.
I’ll take a look at this solution, but the advantage of a report integrated into gramps is precisely that it’s integrated into gramps, so you don’t have to export the data to import it again elsewhere, and especially in a tool that may not be free (open source) software.
My aim is not to sell it: my personal genealogy is of interest only to me and my family. However, for your information, associations that publish books for an entire village sell them to a very wide audience (beyond the genealogical community).
There is another problem with all the CompGen (and by extension all other online) solutions on the market that may be of relevance for you. They all depend on GEDCOM and this means that everything that is not supported by GEDCOM, is lost in those solutions (best case) or simply crashes the export/import process (worst solution). This is of course quite irrelevant for somebody who has only “GEDCOM compliant” data in his/her Gramps database (basically the “Big Three”: birth, marriage, death), but it renders all those solutions quite useless for somebody like me who has events or data in his/her database GEDCOM has never heard of. Gramps and DWR of course support all those events and data and therefore, they are the only existing solution in those cases.
And please note: I do not talk of all the problems that may arise because the GEDCOM export of Gramps does not exactly what the import routine of the other solution expects. Those export/import problems may add another layer to the confusion. But having said this, it is obvious that the situation will very much depend on the data you actually have, so check it out.
A few years ago I stopped using the CompGen solutions (in particular GEDBAS) because of the problems described above, but I will probably come back and point to the platform (Zenodo) where the complete dataset is available as DWR output.
I’m a chemist by training and being a scientist, I know one thing for sure: the only reliable way to identify errors or weak points in a hypothesis (and every genealogy is a hypothesis since we cannot ask people long dead if our data are correct and even if we could, they probably wouldn’t know it either) is to publish the hypothesis and have others check it and discuss it with them. So yes, you’re fully entitled to not publish your data, but it will probably be much more fun and improve the data quality to do it. I guess this is the point @OlliL is trying to make. And yes, you’re fully entitled to ignore my comments
I think I misspoke. I’m also in the scientific world. I publish my data in open data on a genealogy site (Généanet) and on my personal site with DWR (when it works. However, the paper version is intended for my close family and my genealogical circle. However, as soon as the function will be available on Gramps and I will have a paper version, I’ll be happy to send you a copy if you wish.
I guess you’re French so Généanet will probably be a better solution for you compared with all solutions from CompGen. Things may be different if your family comes from Alsace/Lorraine but I guess you can assess the situation much better than I can. My point was: don’t underestimate how other people may be able to help you and how much you may be able to help other ones.
And thank you for the kind offer but I guess you will find a lot of people who will benefit more from the copy
Most of my ancestors are from the former Duchy of Lorraine, with some towns currently in France and others in Germany.
I’m in contact with other genealogists on Généanet and several have already given me tips on how to move forward or correct certain errors made by OFB.
