GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266843947


From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:05:47 -0500
References: <BFECJOAEEPCFBFFLLBGPGEOBGPAA.dna@irishtype3dna.org><4B81D706.3060607@familytreedna.com><663D9BCEF1524D04936516981FC21BC6@HP><4B81F365.7090907@familytreedna.com><96935B881AD84A0D9B598E711FDF5650@HP><8239807.170330.1266835696891.JavaMail.www@wwinf2207>
In-Reply-To: <8239807.170330.1266835696891.JavaMail.www@wwinf2207>


Didier,

I wasn't speaking in reference to any particular haplogroup, I was only speaking
in regard to what should be an easy updating of DYS452 in the database. I
didn't address the issue of updating DYS463.

FTDNA, like virtually all labs testing for genealogical purposes, reports DYS452
high. The Ysearch convention is for DYS452 to be high, and it is the high value
that is entered when someone does an auto-upload to Ysearch from their member
page. The problem in Ysearch is the values that are low, regardless of how they
became low.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: On Behalf Of Didier VERNADE
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 5:48 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] DYS463 and DYS452
>
>
> 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: