GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2002-04 > 1017690283


From: "Orin R. Wells" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] GenealogyDNA.org
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:50:20 -0800
References: <OrinWells@wells.org message <4.1.20020331084401.0533aee0@wells.org>
In-Reply-To: <JCHBN.020401.124136.RC0@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>


At 12:41 PM 4/1/02 -0500, John F. Chandler wrote:

>Maybe you should back up one step: "0." Should the database be purely for
personal interaction, or should groups be allowed to participate with one
organizer acting for the whole group?<<

I think it is clear that this is not what we need. Many people are
independently having their DNA tests run and are not associated with a
group. The Ancestry.com testing through Relative Genetics is going to
accelerate this. It would be best if we allow both types of interaction in
my opinion.

>>Wouldn't it make sense to allow entering the name and dates and places of
the ancestor (plus contact info for the organizer) instead of individual
information about multiple descendants?<<

The first issue of the ancestor has all along been part of my intention on
the data gathering section. This is where we will differ significantly
from the other databases out there. It is of little use if you can not get
some grip on the earliest known ancestor. But I see no reason to limit the
access to group coordinators. I can tell you from my project that we will
have numerous haplotypes associated with the Welles/Wells name. I do not
yet know where the ball will stop on the spinning wheel. I am already
aware that there are at least three different instances of illegitimate
Wells males in the study who will be a whole different issue. Their REAL
ancestor is something else. What is unknown.

>How about the number of different haplotypes and the percentage of
haplotypes that are unique? <<

I am not sure how useful this might be. If we show 500 haplotypes and 450
are unique how does that help anyone? Listing total number of entries
gives one a sense of the magnitude of the database. But, I am open to
discussion on this.

>7-locus set common to all the big 3 testing firms plus the YCC, and the
All known loci will be available and each marker listed individually. I am
thinking that we might want some coding system to reveal which labs they
pertain to, not that in this situation it is very useful. Assuming the
labs are doing a consistent job of accurately reporting results, all that
really matters is whether your pattern matches someone else's. But the
user needs to know some entries will not have all markers and will have to
carefully select the search to compensate for this. Possibly options to
search data from specific origins. For example if I have 23 markers from
Relative Genetics and want to see if I match any haplotypes from Oxford
Ancestry I would want it to limit the search criteria to the markers that
are also common to Oxford Ancestry only. Possibly using a radio button
technique to specify which lab to search and visibly disabling the
unassociated markers on the search screen?

>8-locus common set of the big 3, and the 9-locus set of the YCC basic
>haplotype, and maybe the basic set of each firm by itself. Obviously,
>that would mean figuring the total number of entries in each category as
>well.

I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to keep track
of how many we have from each lab, although if I do it on the front end it
might not be a problem. The tracking of haplotypes is a totally different
matter.

>> 7. Would it be of value when a new entry is made to automatically do a
>> search and send an e-mail to the submitters of existing matching entries?
>
>Probably. Each submitter should have the option of requesting this
service or not.<<

Good thought. A check box that says "notify me if a new entry matches my
haplotype"



Orin R. Wells
Wells Family Research Association
P. O. Box 5427
Kent, Washington 98064-5427
<>
http://www.rootsweb.com/~wellsfam/wfrahome.html
Subscribe to the "Wells-L" list on RootsWeb

This thread: