[Babase] ranker again
Susan Alberts
alberts at duke.edu
Fri Oct 6 12:56:07 EDT 2006
Karl, should you update the rnktypes table with the new types and
remove FYM or can Leah/Tabby do this at this point? I think that you
need to update the definition queries? I am not sure what these are.
Susan
On Oct 5, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Jun Yang wrote:
> Thanks! That's very clear.
>
> Is somebody going to update the rnktypes table with the
> addition of new JUF and JUM types, removal of FYM,
> and update of the definition queries to reflect the new schema?
> (I could do it too, though I am not sure which one of babase_*
> databases to update, and I wouldn't want to interfere with any of
> the ongoing activities.)
>
> BTW, I looked over the ranking data that's in babase_copy. There
> seems to be just three types that have been actually used in the
> past: ADF, ALF, and ALM. In particular, both ADF and ALF rankings
> were provided for several groups between 1995 and 2005. It
> should be possible to check consistency within existing data
> using just a SQL query.
>
> --- Jun Y.
>
> On 10/5/06, Susan Alberts <alberts at duke.edu> wrote:
>> Jun (Karl please read also and provide any feedback),
>>
>> A few more thoughts about ranker after several conversations between
>> Jeanne and I.
>>
>> Perhaps the best way to describe the hierarchical relationships
>> between rank types is as follows:
>>
>> ALF is the "master" within-female ranking. ADF and JUF (juvenile
>> females, not a currently designated rank type, but it should be) need
>> to be derivable from ALF and consistency must be enforced between the
>> relative rankings in each.
>>
>> ALM is the "master" within-male ranking. ADM and JUM (juvenile males,
>> not a currently designated rank type, but it should be) need to be
>> derivable from ALF and consistency must be enforced between the
>> relative rankings in each.
>>
>> ALL is the ranking for both sexes combined. We do not want to enforce
>> consistency between ALL and ALF or ALM. The within sex rank types and
>> the ALL ranktype are really two different categories and there is no
>> clear hierarchical relationship between them.
>>
>> The rnktype FYM should be deleted. We will not population this
>> rnktype with the data available.
>>
>> At some point in the future there may be rnktypes that need to be
>> derived from ALL but this is not obvious to us at the moment, so ALL
>> is not at the top of a hierarchy in the way that ALF and ALM are.
>>
>> I hope this helps, please let us know if there are questions.
>> Susan
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> Susan Alberts, Dept. Biology, Duke University, Durham NC 27708. Phone
>> 919-660-7272, Fax 919-660-7293. alberts at duke.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Babase mailing list
>> Babase at www.eco.princeton.edu
>> http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Babase mailing list
> Babase at www.eco.princeton.edu
> http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
-----------------------------------------------
Susan Alberts, Dept. Biology, Duke University, Durham NC 27708. Phone
919-660-7272, Fax 919-660-7293. alberts at duke.edu
More information about the Babase
mailing list