[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