Nov 11, 2009; 20:37
Donald E King
Fwd: Portals and Many-to-one relationships.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Donald E King <dking4@gte.net>
> Date: November 11, 2009 8:32:01 PM PST
> To: Ross Dickson <rdickson@hilltimes.com>
> Subject: Re: Portals and Many-to-one relationships.
>
> Ross,
>
> It is hierarchal with species at the lowest level and genus at the
> top - just like cities (with only one Springfield :>) - states -
> country - continents - planet at the top.
>
> What I want is to have several tables of varying lengths containing
> the species name and with the sub-section name at the top. This
> identifies all of the species within this subsection. I want to
> create a data sheet (when plant was purchased, from whom, any
> remarks about the plant, etc.) for one plant and when I key the
> species name of the plant into a plant data sheet, it will use its
> relationship to the sub-section name to get the name of the
> pertinent sub-section. I have hoped to continue that relationship,
> with higher level records to identify the section name and further
> the sub-genus and genus. In my original files from several years
> ago, I was able to access only one level away (up or down).
>
> I converted the files and the conditions are worse. Besides, I would
> like to understand why the current layout is not correct.
>
> I have created one file with a sub-section data field at the top of
> the record. The remainder of the records consist of 1-20 portals. I
> look at this as being one variable length record per sub-section. FM
> treats each portal as a record and further more, when keying in the
> second species, FM overlayys the 1st portal with the new 2nd portal.
>
> I apologize if I am not correct in my use of records and files. In
> my many years in DP, the definitions of records , files, tables and
> others changed with employer and main-frame provider.
>
> Donald
>
> On Nov 11, 2009, at 6:54 PM, Ross Dickson wrote:
>
>> Donald,
>>
>> I don't know enough descriptive botany to entirely follow your
>> description, and your needs. Definitions of sections, subsections,
>> genus, subgenus, plant, species and species name, would be most
>> helpful.
>>
>> I suspect some of these entities would be the names of tables,
>> whereas others would be the fields within the tables.
>>
>> What tables and fields have you created so far? The database you
>> set up previously can be easily converted and opened in FMPA 9, and
>> its relationships preserved, saving you the need to build the same
>> tables over again.
>>
>> Ross
>>
>> Donald E King wrote:
>>> Several years ago(>10), I was able to set up a many-to-one
>>> relationship which worked about 90% of the time. Never did get it
>>> to work perfectly. Since I had other priorities, I put it aside.
>>> Now, with FM Pro 9 Adv, I am not able to build the same tables. I
>>> am attempting to build a data base of species rhododendrons
>>> showing a relationship from any (many) species to its sub-section
>>> (one per species) but several species pointing to one sub-
>>> section. Then another table with the same structure from sub-
>>> section to section. Then section to sub-genus and then sub-genus
>>> to genus.
>>> This allows me to input the species name on a plant sheet and the
>>> relationship validates my spelling of the species name and shows
>>> the sub-section name.
>>> I set up a layout with the subsection name and 20 occurrences of a
>>> portal for species. It seems that this should be very simple.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Donald King
>>> --
>>> This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
>>> Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/FileMaker/
>>> Browse/
>>> Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/FileMaker/
>
--
This list is a free service of LassoSoft: http://www.LassoSoft.com/
Search the list archives: http://www.ListSearch.com/FileMaker/Browse/
Manage your subscription: http://www.ListSearch.com/FileMaker/