[Babase] UNK or 998 in actor_actees- Followup

Lacey Maryott Roerish lkm9 at duke.edu
Thu Jun 24 10:13:21 EDT 2010


On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Karl O. Pinc <kop at meme.com> wrote:

> On 06/24/2010 07:14:06 AM, Lacey Maryott Roerish wrote:
> > 998 is now being used for 'we know they have a neighbor, but we don't
> > know
> > who' unk neighbor code. does it make sense to use the same for both?
> > Or was
> > that your question for me?
>
> Letting you know and seeing if you, or anybody, has a comment.
>
> >
> > Should we make another code that makes it easy to distinguish unk
> > actor/actee apart from unk neighbor, or doesn't it matter since they
> > are so
> > unlikely to interact?
>
> The program is going to make 998 disappear for ad-lib interactions,
> which is more or less entirely separate from the neighbor codes.
>
> I don't see any particular reason to use something different if
> 998 is what's being used in the field already.
>
> OOOOH  this is as opposed to just leaving it blank?    I am understanding
now!!  Sounds good!
Lacey

>
>
> Karl <kop at meme.com>
> Free Software:  "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
>                 -- Robert A. Heinlein
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Babase mailing list
> Babase at www.eco.princeton.edu
> http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>



-- 
- -
Lacey K. Maryott Roerish
Alberts Lab
Department of Biology
Duke University
ph: 919-660-7306
fax: 919-660-7293
Lacey.Maryott at duke.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://eeblistserv.Princeton.EDU/pipermail/babase/attachments/20100624/02ebfd77/attachment.html


More information about the Babase mailing list