1

Topic: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Dictionary upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q  is are available from  the R6 web site http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4615

This upgrade implements a number of additions and changes made by the NHM and brings the R6 Dictionary into line with that of the NBN Gateway.   

This upgrade requires Recorder 6 version 6.18 to be installed and will not install on earlier R6 versions.

Please remember that you will need to rebuold the four index table after the upgrade.

Mike Weideli

2

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Uneventful dictionary upgrades on latest versions of server and standalone Recorder 6.

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

3

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Not for me I'm afraid. Yet again it appears to be working, but the progress bars do not move and after a respectable wait I gave up waiting and stopped it. Recorder does not appear to have updated, or at least is still reporting dictionary N.

In my experience this is not unusual.

Mike it would be really useful if whenever one of these is released you could try to give some indication of whether it is a large one, which you expect to take a long time. Also it would be useful to be able to check whether anything has actually been updated, so could you give me an idea of what items to check for in the database.

And Les, since you have done it successfully, could you tell me whether the progress bars actually worked for you (i.e. showed any progress)?

I'm a bit fed up with this, most dictionary upgrades do not perform as expected on our system, although I usually mange to squeeze them in somehow. I am going to try again & this time I will leave it running for a few hours if necessary.

Rob Large
Wildlife Sites Officer
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre

4

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Rob, I noted no progress bar either. The only indication I had was the change of text indicating which tables the new entries were being copied to. Timings? About 30-45 minutes on both 6-year old server and i5 laptop.

Les Evans-Hill
Senior Data Officer, National Moth Recording Scheme

5

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Thanks Les. It worked this time, like you it took about 45 minute. I really with the progress bars did something meaningful though.

Rob Large
Wildlife Sites Officer
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre

6

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

This wasn't a very big upgrade (relative to the last one)   so I didn't specifically warn about it., but looking back at the file sizes the older ones seem to be less tham 1mb so perhaps we should warn on anything over this. As I undertand it, there is no way you can determine what progress an SQL query is making, so the progress bar is only moving after each upgrade, which in this case means a long wait while 0000001O is processed.

Mike Weideli

7

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

I understand that Mike, that's unfortunate.

However 00000010 and 00000011 are both zipped .mdbs (and I have generally observed these to be much slower than the .SQL updates), which presumably involve the execution of multiple SQL statements. Is it not possible to in some way count the individual statements & update the progress bar after each one?

Maybe I should just learn to trust that they will work if I am patient, but past experience hasn't given me much confidence.

Now I have a Windows 7 workstation the updates seems to be working a bit more reliably. One day we will get the database off SQLServer 2000 onto something a bit more recent and then maybe things will get easier (or maybe not?)

Rob Large
Wildlife Sites Officer
Wiltshire & Swindon Biological Records Centre

8

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

I will put the question to John.

Mike Weideli

9 (edited by Alison Stewart 27-03-2013 21:16:48)

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Hello Mike

I have had a trouble free dictionary upgrade to 1Q and rebuilt the indexes, there are now 108244 entries in my ORGANISM table.  However I still have some species that aren't picking up the new class/family/order etc. information, as in an earlier post (http://forums.nbn.org.uk/viewtopic.php?id=4306).  This really only affects Stratiotes aloides in terms of what I currently hold records for, and Dexia rustica which has a sort_order of the new format but is also very obviously out of place in the hierarchy; querying directly in SQL Server shows about 50 species are similarly affected.  I've attached an Excel file of the rows from my query that possibly have an issue. I've also spotted some cases where the order and family etc. aren't resolving properly, often repeating a higher category, e.g. Trachemys scripta, Myosotis and other Boraginaceae.  Is this something that should sort itself out with the next upgrade, or should we be reporting these errors somewhere?

Also could you or Sally sometime briefly outline what the full implementation of the dictionary upgrade planned for v6.19 will mean in practice.  Is there any chance that it will include a more typical taxonomic order, as the current system of alphabetical ordering of the classes/families/orders is producing some unusual results, e.g. mixing of damselflies and dragonflies in Odonata, snakes and lizards in Reptilia, and very mixed up Vascular Plants.

Alison Stewart
Dorset Environmental Records Centre

Post's attachments

dict 1Q queries.xls 33 kb, 5 downloads since 2013-03-27 

You don't have the permssions to download the attachments of this post.
Alison Stewart
Dorset Environmental Records Centre

10

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Thank you for your feed back. I will investigate all the issues you raise to see where the problems are. Nothing within release 6.19 is going to change any of these things as they are all dictionary issues.

Mike Weideli

11

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

I think there must be a problem with your dictionary. Possibly one of the upgrades was missed in the days when this was possible. I will contact you directly to try and resolve this.

With regard to the alphabetical sort order. The mechanism is available to refine the sort and I will try to fix the Odonata and the snakes/lizards in the next upgrade . The plants are going to be a bigger problem as sub family and tribe appear to be used in determining the sort order and these levels are not in the NHM dictionary.  It  may be possible to do something  if  there is a down loadable list somewhere   of the names in a suitable order, but the only one I can find is the NHM list which has the sort in alphabetical order.  Possibly the LST_ITM_CODE in Recorder may be the answer and I will investiagte this.

Mike Weideli

12

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

I have had a go at using the lst_itm_Code in Recorder to get the plants into a better order. The results are in the attached spreadsheet. Views on this would be appreciated. To some extent the order  can be changed  by me without NHM involvement by changing the order within a taxonomic level. For example if the genus order is incorrect within the family, or the families are not in the best order within the 'Order'  then this can be changed.  The underlying structure (eg  which families go into an 'Order') is controlled by the NHM , but I believe they have used the latest thinking in constructing the table.

Post's attachments

AAA_Plant_Hierarchy[1].xlsx 217.25 kb, 3 downloads since 2013-04-07 

You don't have the permssions to download the attachments of this post.
Mike Weideli

13

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Thanks Mike

I started taking a look at this yesterday.  The mixing up of vascular plants is due to the genera and families of the angiosperms coming out at a different level to those of the non-angiosperms.  As you say the underlying structure is fine and follows APG III.  I'll look in more depth in the next couple of days and then post a revised spreadsheet with my thoughts.

Alison Stewart
Dorset Environmental Records Centre

Alison Stewart
Dorset Environmental Records Centre

14

Re: Recorder 6 - Dictionary Upgrade 0000001O,1P,1Q

Hello Mike

Here is my revised version for comment, with a suggested order based on the British Bryological Society 2009 list (downloadable from their website) and APG III/Stace; I haven't looked at the algae section.  The BBS list will also help with positioning the species within the genera; I haven't come across anything comparable for the vascular plants.

I've added a Notes sheet of explanation which I hope is clear enough.

On other species groups, could the birds revert to following the order they are in the ' BIRDS' preferred Checklist,as again these now have some unusual mixing.  This would also work for the Odonata, but unfortunately not for some of the other groups.

Alison

Post's attachments

revised_AAA_Plant_Hierarchy(1).xlsx 313.67 kb, 4 downloads since 2013-04-24 

You don't have the permssions to download the attachments of this post.
Alison Stewart
Dorset Environmental Records Centre