[Babase] Re: MPI data question

Karl O. Pinc kop at meme.com
Tue Nov 27 16:05:16 EST 2007


On 11/27/2007 02:57:42 PM, Lacey Maryott wrote:
> Hi Karl,
> 
>     We spoke yesterday about instances where the consorted female is  
> unknown. We discussed that unknown would have to be NULL in order to  
> keep from coding too much information into any column. I was  
> wondering, is it the case that there is a system in place to  
> accommodate situations where an agonistic actee is unknown? An  
> example is
> 
> TIN VS UNK
> TIN ? DAL
> DAL P TIN
> 
> I remember this having been dealt with in the first design, I just  
> wanted to be sure it can be accommodated in the new design.

Yes, we have a MPI_PARTS.Unksname column as well as a MPI_PARTS.Sname
collumn.  It works like NEIGHBORS.  When we have a legitimate Sname
it goes in the Sname column, otherwise it goes in the Unksname column.

There's a new support table PARTUNKS just for MPI_PARTS.Unksname  
values.  It's up to you what codes (if more than one) you
use for the unknown participant.

Karl <kop at meme.com>
Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
                  -- Robert A. Heinlein



More information about the Babase mailing list