On Thursday, 15 November 2018 10:25:17 GMT Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > When you talk about rows, do you mean rows in the spreadsheet > > You can assume that, and the question still stands. :-)
I hadn't envisage multiple rows in the spreadsheet since we are currently simply typing in the value free-form. Obviously when the system is developed we would probably end up with the equivalent of multiple rows. > Here are three ways of thinking about today's typical `relational > database', each with their own vocabulary. There's quite a bit to digest there and I won't try to do it until I have more time. Many thanks for taking the time to explain it. > The `card' approach to a database, with tables, records, fields, and > forms, has each record being a spreadsheet or relational-database row, > or algebraic tuple, and a field being a column or attribute. Again, it > discards some of the purity of the algebra. From what I've seen it might be all we need though. > Mapping it back onto your stock control, a Location relation might have > `description' and `lon/lat' attribute names, and your Stock relation > would have a `location' attribute name with a value that matched a > Location.description. A UI could present a drop-down of those > Location.description's. Exactly. Though rather than Lat and Long, it's more likely to say 'Terry's Workshop'. :-) > > > Have you considered Google Sheets instead of your LibreOffice > > > spreadsheet? > > It has a Query function that allows SQL-like expressions. > https://www.benlcollins.com/spreadsheets/google-sheets-query-sql/ Worth a look. Thanks. > Django's advantage is more readily defining the web form for data entry > from the description of the database table that you've already told > Django about. But overall it's a bigger beast and might be harder to > grasp what's going on. Whatever, we do, our limited application and the workload that we have would preclude any major development. At the end of the say if the benefit gained is significantly less than the effort expended, then it probably isn't worth it (except for fun maybe). As it happens, Tristan Hill responded off list with the following: Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odoo or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryton. These look as if they might be a jolly good starting point, but again, I haven't had time to follow this up yet. > Not entirely, it seems. Windows and Mac only. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fourth_Dimension_(company) Your ability to make Google work for you never ceases to amaze me :-) I searched for 4th Dimension with all sorts of additional terms and never found it. Having said that, you've linked to the wrong Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Dimension_(software) -- Terry Coles -- Next meeting at *new* venue: Bournemouth, Tuesday, 2018-12-04 20:00 Check if you're replying to the list or the author Meetings, mailing list, IRC, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ New thread, don't hijack: mailto:dorset@mailman.lug.org.uk
