Synchronicity of data ...from central point

[GarrettC]

I am building a database project for an academic. There is a central master database that acts as an overview/relater/controller for the other external satellite databases that hold real data.

One of her needs is the ability to add typing tags to the individual records in each individual external database. The interface in each location is 5 fields arranged hierarchically so that she can set each tag and a calculation field joins them together as one long tag. This field is then used via relationships to join all the differing based on her arbitrary needs.

The first challenge I have and the one I am going to ask about here is the need for synchronicity. What I mean is that if she is in any of these diverse locations she needs to not only access the central library of tags but to be able to add to them on the fly. Other wise she would be forced into going to each database independently and entering the new tag. So far, I have succeeded in a asynchronous success.

I used the ability to retrieve a remote Value List from another file to give her the ability to store the tags in the central library so that she can access them from each database. But I have not found a way that will allow her to add to the central database library.

I used File References and a relating match field to access the library but this is not working, the list will not appear in the remote field. I am not sure what I am doing wrong or if this approach is just crazy talk to start with.

Whatever the solution, this is not a place for a portal. Portal's interface will not work here, too large and too ungainly.

Can someone give me some guidance here? Thanks so much.

[Fenton]

This is interesting. But, though you've explained it fairly well, I still don't really know what you mean.

The interface in each location is 5 fields arranged hierarchically so that she can set each tag and a calculation field joins them together as one long tag.

Why 5 fields? Why not 1 field in 5 records? That is usually a better structure, more extendable.

But I have not found a way that will allow her to add to the central database library.

If the values are in a central file, in a single field, with the value list reading from that field, then adding a value shouldn't be difficult. Of course, if you use 5 fields, and a calculation field, then it's much more difficult; another reason not to do that. The mechanism for adding could be as simple as a button running a script with a custom dialog, with an input field (since you say portals are out).

[bcooney]

I can't hold this back- it's synchronization not synchronicity. Somewhere, Arthur Clarke is laughing.

You might want to wander over to WorldSync.com for their synchronization plugin.

[comment]

Isn't synchronicity (as a synonym for synchrony) the result of synchronization? And how is Clarke related to this?

[GarrettC]

Arthur isn't up for the question, having died a few days ago.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jX5mNcDJXKcA-0oFWTfA1SF3BbUA

[GarrettC]

I agree Fenton my methods are as much in question so I laid that bare as well. I tend to have mental block when it come to using records for interface and not storing data. I know that probably sounds crazy to all of you.

But I understand what you are suggesting... set up... well do not need to repeat it, let me go hurt myself and come back.

"Why 5 fields? Why not 1 field in 5 records? That is usually a better structure, more extendable."

Each field is a popup menu with multiple choices so that she can assemble the longer full tag, at will.

One more question: Is there a way to access a remote field in another file and make changes to it? Are related methods the only way?

Edited March 22, 2008 by Guest

[Fenton]

Is there a way to access a remote field in another file and make changes to it? Are related methods the only way?

A Cartesian relationship (X) has access to all records in the related table. A Constant relationship (based on an auto-enter 1) also would do the same. Either could allow creation of related records.

But neither is necessary to access a Value List of the values in a field of an unrelated table. Nor is a relationship needed to add a value via a script, as you would just go to a layout of the table and add the record and value.

[Fenton]

I think the basic question I have is this, "Are these 5 separate things, or are they 5 separate values for one thing?"

If it is separate values for describing the same thing, it should be 1 field, if 5 different things, then obviously it has to be 5 fields.

[GarrettC]

"A Cartesian relationship (X) has access to all records in the related table"

Fenton that was successful ticket that made it work. How it works now...

There is central, hub like database, used for a number of things but in this case there is a table named Tag Library. It has a single record and 2 fields. The first field is the key with a Cartesion relationship and the other field has the list of hierarchical tags (bagged the 5 multiple level fields).

In each satellite database that is connected to the hub there is a '2-way' system. Part 1 is the ability to arbitrarily tag each record (from central list), this is done by using a single field for the tag, that has a popup menu, with a value list connected to the tag list in the table, "Tag Library," in the hub database.

Part 2 is the ability to remotely edit the main list from any of the satellite databases. A button next to the tag field of each record, via a script opens a window with 2 fields: the relation key tied to the key in the central hub and a field that shows the list. Typing in this list or editing a tag is instantly reflected in the central hub and by default all other tables in each satellite database that has the tag field with the popup menu value list.

Works like a charm, thanks Fenton.