On Jan 15, 2:14*pm, Weng wrote:
packat;826360 Wrote:



On Dec 30, 8:40*am, "v_coerulea" wrote:-
So you're not talking about databases just coding for acess to a
database
the will be created in the futures by someone or individuals. If
that's
correct and you're just looking for advice on what topics interest
people so
you can write it into your program, then this whole thing is a lot
easier..
Mentionned already was lip color. You can add wavy, frilly, small,
large;
flower recumbent or not; flower large, medium, small, single, small
group,
cluster; tall spike, medium, or small; spike straight, lax or arched,
or
downward; plant is small, medium, large, very large, miniature;
monopodial
growth, sympodial growth; internode is 1", 1", 1". You get the idea I
think (credit, *please. Just joking)
Enjoy yourself.
Gary

Thank for the great tip. *You read mind. *Is this common among
vanda's? ;-)
I think the key is to know what key features people are looking for in
orkinds. *You gave me lots of answers. *What I have done so far were
the standard thing, petal, sepal and lips *color, pattern, relative
size, shape, texture. *I will add what you suggested.

thanks,
pax

-

Pax,

Like you, I grew up in Malaysia, love orchids and have done some
database programming in the past.

I photograph orchids in the wild, and am constantly frustrated at not
being able to ID the photos I take. *Your proposed search engine would
be of immense value to me.

You might like to have a look at some taxonomic orchid books in your
local library. *Most books starting with 'The Genus ...' or 'Orchids of
...' will have a key to the various species descibed in the book. *You
will also find all the information for your database therein.

The on-going taxonomic revisions should not be a hinderance to your
search engine. *In the type of books mentioned above, you will always
see the name of the person who first described it after the specie name
- eg. -Laelia purpurata- Lindley. *Simply use all three names and there
should be no confusion as to the plant, regardless of the number of
subsequent reclassifications.

Thanks for the info. I spent last few weekends to collecting taxonomy
from various site. Unfortunately, I dropped the author's name (the
third parameter) thinking it was not important. Ha! This explains
why some species were declared synonymous to two different parents.

I will add author name attribute to the schema. Looks like another
two weekends to scan through all those species again to get author's
name.

Thanks for the offer. I will count on it :-) I still have my day
job, so the progress is not going as fast as I hope for. So far
I created an orchid list browser (wiki style). I will open it up to
the public when it is ready perhaps in a few weeks. When I start
working on the search engine, I will definitely need help to validate
the result... This is still a few months (or years if I don't retire
soon :-) in the future.

Thanks again,
pax




But when we get around





Do let me know if I can be of help.

Weng

--
Weng