Download - MyWeb - Texas Tech University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CCAP Digital Data Collection System Figure 7.3. The Artifact Analysis form for Specimen #CC0039-01. The smiling and waving germ drawing near the top of the form is a link to the Bug Report form, which was used to identify and correct problems with the database. the most recent version of the database on each iPad would be renamed (“CCAP Database 5-27-12 iPad 1 field to lab,” for example) and then copied to the laptop through iTunes. During syncing, the databases were merged into a new “master” database (“CCAP Dabase 5-29-12 CC Lab Master”). After the databases had been synced (see below), a new version 79
The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich Archaeological Project of the database would be copied to each laptop (“CCAP Database 5-29-12 iPad 1,” for example). By using this system, each version of the database was preserved as a backup each time the information was downloaded from the field. From Theory to Practice Question: What’s the difference between the Titanic and the CCAP FileMaker database Answer: The Titanic was easier to sync. FileMaker Pro and FileMaker Go: The “Syncing” Problem The problems with the database became apparent on the first attempt to sync the iPads. On the first day of field work, four iPads, each loaded with a blank version of the FileMaker Pro database were sent out into the field: two to Kaxil Uinic and two to Chan Chich. Once one of the project staff members entered a form on a given iPad, a new version of the database existed. When it came time to sync the four iPads, four different versions of the database were brought in from “the wild,” each full of unique information sharing the same database structure. As we learned, the process to combine the databases was not really syncing, but was rather importing into FileMaker Pro and exporting back to FileMaker Go. True syncing would merge the various databases together. Syncing was what we planned to do; importing and exporting were what we could do. Problems immediately arose with higher-order forms like the Site Summary and Operation Definition forms. For example, because each level of form required the next highest level to be created first (i.e., you could not complete a Suboperation Definition form until an Operation Definition form had been first created), each supervisor created a Site Summary form followed by an Operation Definition form on their respective iPads. This meant that there were two Site Summary forms for Chan Chich and two Operation Definition forms for Op CC-10, for example. During importing, the form on the second file of the two Chan Chich field databases to be imported into the master version on the MacBook Pro would trump the first and overwrite it, simply by virtue of its having imported last. Once this problem was realized, a number of steps were taken to facilitate the importing process. First, the original master database, which had included both Kaxil Uinic and Chan Chich, was saved as two separate files, one for each site. Second, each operation director was instructed to only make changes to high order forms and those that applied to multiple suboperations on only one iPad. These included the Site Summary form, the Operation Definition form, the Sample form, and the List of Datums form. Those forms would be imported from the operation director’s iPad and exported to both iPads at each site during database updating. Third, each iPad was assigned to specific suboperations so that the Suboperation Definition forms and Lot forms for each unit would only be modified on one of the field iPads. These steps eliminated most problems with duplicate forms, but not all problems during importing. FileMaker Pro’s import function from one file to another is done one form at a time. This meant that for each field form (Suboperation Definition form, Lot form, etc.), a separate import had to be done for each of the four iPads. This proved to be a time-consuming and unexpected task. Another unexpected problem with the database was that when Lot forms were imported the rather critical information entered in the “Field Collection” portal was not brought into the master database (Figure 7.4). Because the “Field Collection” information was used to generate the Field-to-Lab Bag Check In form, 80
Page 1 and 2:
The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich A
Page 3 and 4:
Contents Acknowledgments...........
Page 5 and 6:
The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich A
Page 8 and 9:
Return to Paradise: An Introduction
Page 10 and 11:
An Introduction to the 2012 Chan Ch
Page 12 and 13:
An Introduction to the 2012 Chan Ch
Page 14 and 15:
Multi-sensor Archaeo-geophysical Su
Page 16 and 17:
Archaeo-geophysical Survey of the U
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Chan Chich: 2012 Investigations of
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36: Chan Chich: 2012 Investigations of
Page 39 and 40: The 2012 Season of the Chan Chich A
Page 72 and 73: Preliminary Comments on the 2012 Ce
Page 80 and 81: The Chan Chich Archaeological Proje
Page 82 and 83: CCAP Digital Data Collection System
Page 90 and 91: Dear Dr. Thompson Matthew C. Harris
Page 92: Dear Dr. Thompson Figure 8.3. Scan
show all

Download - MyWeb - Texas Tech University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?