[ForestryTools] database/ early design

[Lee]

To clarify, my thoughts are not targetted towards the long-term
use/feasibility of using tables/csv verses database. In the long term,
databases will be necessary to handle more complex data for a variety of
users. That said, I do think it is important we get something usable going
as soon as possible to attract further interest. In this sense, I wondered
if we'd be able to short-cut around some of the database design for the
time being by using simple joins between table data and spatial data.

In this case, I'm in no way an expert. It just might be worth discussion.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Jake Maier <j.m at jmforestry.com> wrote:

> Hi Lee and Abdoul.****
>
> I think a simple table is easier if it’s a simple relationship between the
> spatial and the tabular data. If the relationships are complex and changes
> often depending on the particular situation, then a database is quicker and
> easier.****
>
> Thanks for your good work.****
>
> My 2 ct****
>
> Jake ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* forestrytools-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:
> forestrytools-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *Abdoul O. Dia
> *Sent:* Friday, May 31, 2013 3:03 PM
> *To:* forestrytools at lists.osgeo.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ForestryTools] database/ early design****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Lee,
>
> This could be a way to start and test it. But we need to keep in mind that
> we'll need to handle external files (e.g. csv) and to manage spatial data
> (e.g.: vectors). The relationship between the external and spatial data
> should be kept some how so we can attribute to every single point or
> polygone in a shapefile its related data from the field. In this case I
> think using a database would be easier. What others think?
>
> Abdoul
>
>
> Le 2013-05-30 18:20, Lee a écrit :****
>
> To not flood the other string with a new topic, here's a new email:****
>
> I had a long drive the other day, which gave me a good chance to think
> things over regarding the database structure. Specifically, my current
> "narrative" I put on the forestry tools wiki calls for just loading
> external CSVs to do easy analysis, rather than porting into a database.***
> *
>
> How do you feel about establishing initial functionality with simple
> tables, opposed to database structure? Once we get an initial release out
> and develop some interest, we could add more complex database support.****
>
> I'm not sold either way, I just thought it might be worth discussion. I'm
> not sure what's simpler and more useful from a starting location.
>
> Thoughts?****
>
>
> --
> All the best,
> Lee
> ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
> Registered Forester #46043****
>
>
>
>
> ****
>
> _______________________________________________****
>
> Forestrytools mailing list****
>
> Forestrytools at lists.osgeo.org****
>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> Forestrytools mailing list
> Forestrytools at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/forestrytools/attachments/20130602/f50f1001/attachment.html>