List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:David Blomstrom Date:April 17 2005 5:31am
Subject:Re: Relative Numeric Values
View as plain text  
--- Kim Briggs <patiodragon@stripped> wrote:
> David,
> 
> In reading through miscellaneous database design
> text on the web, I
> read just the other day that you should not try to
> include meaningful
> data in your key values.  I assume there will be
> some kind of "lookup"
> tables for species, phylum, whatever.  Trying to
> make your key field
> "smart" seems like way too much overhead and
> complexity.  I'm
> wondering why, if the database is enormous, are you
> being so short and
> cryptic with the "user-friendly" values?

Primarily because I want to make it easier to work
with. If I create a new page that focuses on the king
salmon, I'd rather type in $MyID = 'onc'; than $MyID =
'Oncorhynchus'. Or if I create an array, I'd rather
list rhi, hip, equ than Rhinocerotidae,
Hippopotamidae, Equidae.

In fact, I'll have to discard big chunks of the
animals database I received on a CD, as it's way to
big (several MB) and includes living things I won't
cover (bacteria, viruses, etc.).

I'm also trying to decide on my URL structure. I could
follow tradition and map out the lion like this:

mammals.geobop.org/carnivora/felidae/panthera/leo/

...but I'm thinking of shortening the URL's:

mammals.geobop.org/car/fel/pan/leo/

I'm just trying to come up with something that's more
user friendly.

Thanks.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
Thread
Relative Numeric ValuesDavid Blomstrom17 Apr
  • Re: Relative Numeric ValuesKim Briggs17 Apr
    • RE: Relative Numeric Valuesgunmuse17 Apr
  • Re: Relative Numeric ValuesPeter Brawley17 Apr
  • Re: Relative Numeric ValuesDan Bolser18 Apr
Re: Relative Numeric ValuesDavid Blomstrom17 Apr
  • Re: Relative Numeric ValuesDan Bolser18 Apr