[Babase] sexskins questions

Jeanne Altmann babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
Thu, 09 Sep 2004 09:40:14 -0400


agreed,
i'll look at these when i can but low on the long list,
jeanne

At 08:44 AM 9/9/2004 +0300, you wrote:
>OK with me, thnx.
>
>Susan
>
>>Karl and I have decided to not include sexskins in the conversion for 
>>now. We both sort of think that it's cleaner to keep them out, fix them 
>>someday, then put them into the database.  Otherwise, we have messy, 
>>potentially confusing and unusable data mixed in with our good stuff.
>>
>>-steph
>>
>>--On Wednesday, September 08, 2004 11:26 AM +0300 Susan Alberts 
>><alberts@duke.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Steph,
>>>
>>>On the sex skins, what we've discussed is that that table is not complete
>>>and we should not make a strong attempt to integrate iit into the
>>>database. Data have been entered covering two very different but rather
>>>short periods, and we have used the sexskins table for two specific
>>>purposes, neither of which we have felt much need to follow up on at this
>>>time.
>>>
>>>So, I think we decided that errors and inconsistencies in the sexskins
>>>table should be ignored -- in other words, i don't think any data
>>>integrity checks should require that the sex skins table be consistent
>>>with other tables. If I am remembering wrong and we didn't make this
>>>decision, I'd like to put on the table that we decide now to not have
>>>data integrity checks involve the sex skins table and that we live with
>>>the consequences for now (which i think will be minimal).
>>>
>>>Thoughts? Maybe there is something that I ihaven't considered about this?
>>>
>>>Susan
>>>
>>>>hi all (but really Jeanne),
>>>>
>>>>  I've got some cycles/sexskins issues that I need some help with.
>>>>
>>>>1) We're getting an error that says "sexskins dates overlap with
>>>>following cycles mdate."  Did we get rid of this rule?  I think we
>>>>should consider doing so if not.  What seems to be happening is that
>>>>the sexskins table does not differentiate between a sexskin score
>>>>that is for a turgesence versus a deturgesence.  So, in some cases,
>>>>a score of 2 or 3 is really a d2 or d3, but the computer seems to
>>>>want those to go with the next cid (which they shouldn't since they
>>>>are really the tail end -no pun intended - of a cycle).
>>>>
>>>>2) Can anyone find me some data for Alto's in late 1976 and in
>>>>1977??  My originals seem to stop in July 1976 and don't pick up
>>>>again until 1980. It's making the checking of some cycles in late
>>>>1976 and in 1977 rather difficult.
>>>>
>>>>3) we are getting a lot of errors from the sexskins table.  it makes me
>>>>sad.
>>>>
>>>>Jeanne - if we need to talk about this, let me know.
>>>>
>>>>thanks,
>>>>steph
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Babase mailing list
>>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>>Susan Alberts, Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham
>>>NC 27708
>>>919-660-7272 (phone), 919-660-7293 (FAX)
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Babase mailing list
>>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Babase mailing list
>>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase
>
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Susan Alberts, Department of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham 
>NC 27708
>919-660-7272 (phone), 919-660-7293 (FAX)
>_______________________________________________
>Babase mailing list
>Babase@www.eco.princeton.edu
>http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase