On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, David Blomstrom wrote:
>--- Kim Briggs <patiodragon@stripped> wrote:
>> 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,
>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:
>...but I'm thinking of shortening the URL's:
>I'm just trying to come up with something that's more
That is a really good idea. This data is horrible and messy. If you could
come up with a 'biologist friendly' system it would be really nice to work
However, I think the message is - make the database sound, and build any
'cleanup' (userfriendlyness) ontop of a robust data model.
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around