[Babase] Re: MPI data question

Lacey Maryott lacey.maryott at duke.edu
Tue Nov 27 16:42:24 EST 2007


Right! I don't think we will have more than one code for UNK in this 
case, unlike the parts data where we have 997 and 998, It will probably 
just be UNK, right? or some variation on that?

Lacey

Karl O. Pinc wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Babase mailing list
> Babase at www.eco.princeton.edu
> http://www.eco.princeton.edu/mailman/listinfo/babase

-- 
Lacey Maryott
Alberts Lab
Department of Biology
Duke University
ph: 919-660-7306
fax: 919-660-7293
Lacey.Maryott at duke.edu 



More information about the Babase mailing list