[Babase] Re: Correction for consorts data, and valinter for M/C/Es
Karl O. Pinc
babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:22:19 -0600
On 2004.02.18 09:55 Daphne Onderdonk wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Jeanne and I just talked about this. My first reaction was that for
> something
> specific like this, maybe we didn't need to have a permanent record of
> it, and
> that we could just use the Babase list for more general decisions.
> But obviously
> that is not a black and white distinction, and as Jeanne pointed out,
> sometimes
> these specific things bring up more general questions. So I think our
> thoughts
> were to go through the mailing list even for things like this.
I think it's a good idea to put these sorts of messages on the list.
If there
gets to be too much traffic, we can have two lists; one for messages
related to babase usage and the database content and one for technical/
program development discussion.
>
> And this specific thing does bring up a more general thing - Karl, is
> there no
> check in the valinter program that checks that the actor is not a
> female? It
> seems that could be in there, unless valinter checks all the
> interaction types
> the same way (this would obviously only apply to M/C/Es - agonisms and
> grooming
> can have either sex as the actor and actee, but M/C/Es should always
> be male
> M/C/E female). Can it check the different interaction types
> differently? Is
> this a check that we want to put in there?
The current database does not check this. (I don't think.) We can
put something like this into the new database.
I need to think about the right way to do this. Are there other sorts
of
interactions that might need a 'opposite sex' flag, even if we're not
recording such interactions at the moment?
> I will do some querying in Interact/Parts to see if there are more
> cases like
> this.
Please write back with the number of problems found.
Karl <kop@meme.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein