[AccessD] More hi-jinks

[Jim Dettman]

Susan,

 Your on the right track I think

 I would add a table for groups, then a table for group members.  I would
have type or species as a table, and FK's in the individual animal table and
the groups table.

 I would also suggest one other thing; you said they already have software -
can you look at it?   How did they solve it?

 Might be interesting to see because as you said, how in a herd can you
ensure that every animal has gotten a dose of medicine if it's administered
via feed?   Seems like you simply can't.  If there's no accepted practice
for doing that, then you simply can't do it.

Jim.

-----Original Message-----
From: AccessD [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of FW
Salato Center
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 03:30 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: Re: [AccessD] More hi-jinks

Hi Jim; 

You are too funny -- but believe me, if I didn't have a sense of humor, I'd
have given up a while ago. :) 

I just got back in from a walk around the facility. It's a great birding day
and it cleared my head. Here are my simplest options: 

1.) Create a group table and use UNIONs. There'd be nothing in this table
but the group names and I suppose a species id. 
2.) Add a field to the Individuals table that ids groups and add them to the
existing table. 

Thank you for your thoughts -- I like them and it's good to get that
confirmation that this doesn't have to be as difficult as I was making it. 

Susan H. 

Ah! - so you're getting that little something extra for Xmas!

Maybe you should also consider recording the ongoing weight of each animal
in a herd, while you are doing this addition
:)
And correlate that with the input of food and output of ...
:(

And - there will be conversion factors - 1 deer = 0.002 of a tiger
1 grasshopper = nnn ants of type,
 

So - reality:

Consider - is it appropriate to have a 'type' indicator and include the
groups into the main database, or better to have them recorded in additional
separate tables using their own forms set and additional 'Union's

Me, I'd tend to include them with the extra entry of type and group-id  and
then you only need special tables for a very few processes related to that
type - such as add to, or remove from a the specific group of that type 

Maybe an indicator to indicate if the being is to be managed as an
individual, but also as part of the indicated group Then you can start
considering the additional action forms needed to relate to the group - as
in feed/day, and cost of that food.
And - the follow up - food procurement sources, quality checking on receipt,
storage requirements, max and actual amounts (volume and/or weight)  and
quality checking on extraction from the store And together with that there
will be the daily input (from where) and output (to
where/what) 


-- 
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com