GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266835697


From: Didier VERNADE <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:48:17 +0100 (CET)
References: <BFECJOAEEPCFBFFLLBGPGEOBGPAA.dna@irishtype3dna.org><4B81D706.3060607@familytreedna.com><663D9BCEF1524D04936516981FC21BC6@HP><4B81F365.7090907@familytreedna.com><96935B881AD84A0D9B598E711FDF5650@HP>
In-Reply-To: <96935B881AD84A0D9B598E711FDF5650@HP>


Diana,

I don't know what would be FTDNA answer but your suggestion seems to focus on R1b values. DYS463 is taking fairly different values in other groups. For example: C3a --> 21 (low standard) ; E1b1a --> 18 (low) .

>From the discussion it's still unclear to me what's going on when someone is uploading results from FTDNA : are the high FTDNA values converted in low standard to fit ysearch convention ? That could be the first point to clarify.

Didier


>
>
> The update I'm suggesting for DYS452 does not require the Ysearch database
> structure to change, at all. And I see no reason to delay this update while
> waiting for the whole database to be restructured to solve the micro-allele
> issue, which I fully grant is a bigger issue and does require re-structuring.
>
> Unless your IT department is using the lamest software on the planet, the update
> to DYS452 is as simple as I indicated, and it would save your users a lot of
> headaches in the interim you would do it.
>
> I'm taking the rest of my reply offlist.
>
> Diana
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Diana Gale Matthiesen wrote:
> > > Forgive me, Thomas, but this situation makes no sense to
> > > me. If the IT department is using anything remotely like
> > > typical SQL software, the entire database could be updated
> > > with a single SQL command, at least with regard to
> > > DYS452. Here is how simple the SQL command would be:
> > >
> > > UPDATE database SET DYS452 = DYS452 + 19 WHERE
> > > DYS452 < 24 and DYS452 > 0
> >
> >
> > To the defense of the IT group I must say that this is of course more
> > than just updating rows in a table. Note that the structure needs to
> > be completely re-organized when micro-alleles are considered and
> > that there are still some markers that are not clearly defined in
> > nomenclature with the current NIST standards.
> >
> > This is of course no excuse to delay this change forever. I
> > try to push this as good as I can.
> >
> > Thomas
> >
>
>
>



This thread: