Standardised House Names

Make suggestions and report problems.
User avatar
Axel P
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2027
Joined: 08:09 Wed 12 Sep 2007
Location: Langenfeld, near Cologne, Germany
Contact:

Post by Axel P »

Q1: In my personal lists I encountered the same problem, which I solved in always leaving the quinta aside.

Q2. No modifiers as we are not doing the standardized language profile test..

Q3 and Q4. No quotation marks and no possesives. As Im a forgeinger this is not too difficult for me. I would go for Graham Malvedos.

Q5 No ligatures.

Summary I would post Graham Malvedos VP 1979.

It might not cater for all eventualities, but too much bureaucracy might not be the solution to our plan. So if someone is aware that there are two different labels for the individual markets he might be clever enough to browse for both if he seeks advice.

Hopefully that was a help, Julian

Axel
worldofport.com
o-port-unidade.com
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Name questions

Post by jdaw1 »

Derek T. wrote:
AHB wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:AHB’s comments have crystalised one of my concerns. If a wine is bottled as a Single Quinta, who cares who owns it? Why not just call it Quinta do Tiddlyposh, and that’s that. If, by happy life-simplfying chance, it has been bound to a particular blender for at least a century, then perhaps we could call it Graham Malvedos. But if the association is newer, why not have just the Quinta name?
I wholeheartedly agree. Quinta do Tiddlyposh as the naming convention sounds good to me. Stage 3 of the Derek project might be to track the varying ownership over time.
I agree.
So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.) Please choose from:
  • Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
  • Churchill Quinta do Fojo
  • Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
  • Croft Quinta da Roeda
  • Delaforce Quinta da Corte
  • Dow Quinta do Bomfim
  • Ferreira Quinta do Seixo
  • Fonseca Quinta de Santo António
  • Fonseca Quinta do Cruzeiro
  • Fonseca Guimaraens
  • Fonseca Quinta do Panascal
  • Graham Quinta das Lages
  • Graham Malvedos
  • Kopke Quinta São Luiz
  • Krohn Quinta do Retiro Novo
  • Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha
  • Sandeman Vale de Mendiz
  • Messias Quinta do Cachão
  • Niepoort Quinta do Passadouro
  • Ramos Pinto Quinta do Bom Retiro
  • Ramos Pinto Quinta de Ervamoira
  • Robertson Quinta da Roncao
  • Royal Oporto Quinta das Carvalhas
  • Smith Woodhouse Madalena
  • Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita
  • Taylor Quinta de Vargellas
  • Warre Quinta da Cavadinha
Last edited by jdaw1 on 23:12 Tue 25 Mar 2008, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

software that will convert most sloppy typing

Post by jdaw1 »

Axel P wrote:No quotation marks and no possesives. As Im a forgeinger this is not too difficult for me. I would go for Graham Malvedos.
I am writing software that will convert most sloppy Blackberry-grade typing into the correct neatly-displayed pedantic name.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Name questions

Post by DRT »

AHB wrote:
Derek T wrote:No supermarket BOB's, please. We would never know what they really are. I think we need to carve out the merchants BOBs into a separate list/chart where we can add the name of the real shipper as and when we uncover it.
Good idea - but would you support the inclusion of merchants who blended their own?

I also like the idea of emailing each producer in turn the question of a complete listing of their declared vintages.
If we are having two lists, I would put these with the other BOB's rather than the "real" VPs as they will also require additional fields or notes to note the sources of the juice they blended, like the Adam's 63 we had at TCP in January. Also, as the blending will have taken place in the UK using wines already officially "Declared" I don't think these will actually have the same regulatory status as the wines blended in VNG or the Douro.

Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Name questions

Post by DRT »

jdaw1 wrote: So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.)
I think we should use just one naming convention for all Quintas:

Quinta de/do/da/dos/das Tiddlypop (Shipper who produced the wine) - clever indexing can place them in the most appropriate place in the overall list.

This will avoid us treating some incorrectly just because they are not as well known to us as Vargellas or Malvedos.

Oh, and Guimaraens is a family/brand name, not a Quinta :wink:

Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Name questions

Post by jdaw1 »

Derek T. wrote:Oh, and Guimaraens is a family/brand name, not a Quinta
Fonseca Guimaraens: name can be used in a manner grammatically equivalent to a Quinta.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Name questions

Post by DRT »

jdaw1 wrote:
Derek T. wrote:Oh, and Guimaraens is a family/brand name, not a Quinta
Fonseca Guimaraens: name can be used in a manner grammatically equivalent to a Quinta.
Not really. You can't put Quinta in front of it and you can't treat it like a plot of land that may have supplied grapes to one or more port shippers in the past and present.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Fonseca Guimaraens versus Graham Malvedos

Post by jdaw1 »

Fonseca Guimaraens versus Graham Malvedos: if you really care please split the thread.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT »

I don't. I was just pointing out the difference in case you didn't know.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: software that will convert most sloppy typing

Post by jdaw1 »

jdaw1 wrote:
Axel P wrote:No quotation marks and no possesives. As Im a forgeinger this is not too difficult for me. I would go for Graham Malvedos.
I am writing software that will convert most sloppy Blackberry-grade typing into the correct neatly-displayed pedantic name.
That software is written. Awaiting test data from KillerB (all TN thread names). Also need to expand set of names to include Derek T.’s recent finds (where recent is since Saturday-ish). Good night for now.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Name questions

Post by jdaw1 »

jdaw1 wrote:So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.) Please choose from:
  • Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
www.cockburns-usa.com/our_ports_quinta.html wrote:Cockburn's Quinta dos Canais is a traditional, terraced Upper Douro river quinta that has been producing superior wines for many years. The property has consistently provided the grapes that are the backbone of Cockburn's declared vintages. Considered the "jewel in the crown," the property was purchased in 1989,
So that’s a no for that one. Renamed plain “Quinta dos Canais†.
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Name questions

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

jdaw1 wrote:So now we need to decide which Quintas have “been bound to a particular blender for at least a century†. (Where being bound is implied by ownership, but is also implied by a de facto exclusive sale agreement, or the like.) Please choose from:
  • Churchill Quinta da Agua Alta
  • Churchill Quinta do Fojo
  • Cockburn Quinta dos Canais
  • Croft Quinta da Roeda
  • Delaforce Quinta da Corte
  • Dow Quinta do Bomfim
  • Ferreira Quinta do Seixo
  • Fonseca Quinta de Santo António
  • Fonseca Quinta do Cruzeiro
  • Fonseca Guimaraens
  • Fonseca Quinta do Panascal
  • Graham Quinta das Lages
  • Graham Malvedos
  • Kopke Quinta São Luiz
  • Krohn Quinta do Retiro Novo
  • Martinez Quinta da Eira Velha
  • Sandeman Vale de Mendiz
  • Messias Quinta do Cachão
  • Niepoort Quinta do Passadouro
  • Ramos Pinto Quinta do Bom Retiro
  • Ramos Pinto Quinta de Ervamoira
  • Robertson Quinta da Roncao
  • Royal Oporto Quinta das Carvalhas
  • Smith Woodhouse Madalena
  • Taylor Quinta de Terra Feita
  • Taylor Quinta de Vargellas
  • Warre Quinta da Cavadinha
I don't agree. I believe that for stage 1 of Project Derek we should simply list the Quinta name as Quinta do Tiddly-om-pom-pom. We can worry later about who owned it and when. If you have three ports from Roriz, does it matter for our purposes of identiying a declaration whether it was owned by the Van Zellers, Ferreira or independent? Just list it as Quinta do Roriz and the year.

I thought I had read recently that Malvedos had changed from being Graham's Malvedos to Graham's Quinta dos Malvedos - or was that only on the back label of the port? I would suggest that we use a simple name for this of Malvedos but display as the Quinta name.

Fonseca Guimaraens should be entered and displayed as Fonseca Guimaraens.

I'm also happy to go with the view of all BoBs and MoLs (merchant own labels) being on a separate list which we can work on later.

Alex
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
uncle tom
Dalva Golden White Colheita 1952
Posts: 3518
Joined: 23:43 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Near Saffron Walden, England

Post by uncle tom »

Gosh!

A few days away from a 'puter and I've missed out on a huge thread!

I have a database of known vintage ports that currently runs to almost exactly 1500.

Finding a consistant way of listing them is very difficult, for several reasons: Noval is now an SQ, but prior to '97 was a blend from different quintas. Malvedos is normally considered an SQ, but is actually a blend of wines from Q. Malvedos and some adjacent quintas. In '97 Croft sold their principle wine as Q. Roeda, as all the grapes were sourced from the one Quinta, but in '03 sold it as Croft, even though all the grapes were once again sourced from Q. Roeda..

I therefore consider that the use of the word 'Quinta' is best avoided in listings!

Many of the Quinta names are linked to a major shipper, which is often quoted first, sometimes to the exclusion of the Quinta. I therefore list the Graham blend as 'Graham', and the subordinate Malvedos wines as 'Graham Malvedos' (without commas, as they can be too easily forgotton, mucking up sort routines)

Some Quintas have dissolved their associations with a shipper, and gone it alone, thus the Passadouro wines from 1992 to 2001 are listed as 'Niepoort Passadouro' the 2003 is listed as 'Niepoort Secundum' (this was the year of the bust-up, and Dirk sold the wine as the Secundum) and from 2004 and 2005 I have it listed simply as 'Passadouro'

This looks horribly complicated, but it's the best format I can come up with! At some point I will add some footnotes to my database to clarify and cross reference the oddities.

Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT »

Tom,

Would you be happy to share your data so that we can merge our two datasets together and then link them to the TN threads?

I am happy to do the data stuff. Jdaw is presentation and linkage man as well as being our resident data accuracy pedant. Every good database needs one.

I think you, Axel and AHB should form the Shipper Naming and Indexing Committee.

Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Is there a single name applicable across years, … ?

Post by jdaw1 »

We need an in-principle decision. Is there a single name applicable across years, or are there multiple names over time? Rephrased, is there such a thing as a history of declarations of Passadouro? (If Passadouro is a moveable feast, then no.)
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Is there a single name applicable across years, … ?

Post by DRT »

jdaw1 wrote:We need an in-principle decision. Is there a single name applicable across years, or are there multiple names over time? Rephrased, is there such a thing as a history of declarations of Passadouro? (If Passadouro is a moveable feast, then no.)
I don't think it is ever going to come down to straighforward logic. There seems to be general concensus building that the use of the word Quinta is a bad thing from and indexing perspective, as are de/do/da/das/dos. Can we agree that such words can only exist in the displayed name but the wines sorted and indexed without them. e.g.

Taylor's Quinta do Vargellas would appear as Quinta do Vargellas (Taylor) and be placed alongside Taylor (and its other Quintas) in the index by having an index name of Taylor Vargellas.

This style should cover all eventualities and would ensure that Quintas that have changed hands or loyalty would be shown in the appropriate place in the index with a qualifying shippers name in ().

Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
Alex Bridgeman
Graham’s 1948
Posts: 14880
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Re: Is there a single name applicable across years, … ?

Post by Alex Bridgeman »

Derek T. wrote:Taylor's Quinta do Vargellas would appear as Quinta do Vargellas (Taylor) and be placed alongside Taylor (and its other Quintas) in the index by having an index name of Taylor Vargellas.

This style should cover all eventualities and would ensure that Quintas that have changed hands or loyalty would be shown in the appropriate place in the index with a qualifying shippers name in
But this is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I didn't want the Quinta name to be associated with the owner as owners change over the years and it is not always obvious who the owner of a Quinta was at the time the wine was shipped.

Unless :idea: what you are suggesting means that I could do a sort on the name of the Quinta and get a list of all the Quinta's declarations regardless of the owner. Or are you suggesting that we have a list that includes all the permutations of Quinta Name, Owner, Vintage Year?

Take Passadouro as an example. I would want to be able to get a list of all the vintages that Passadouro have ever declared. I don't care whether they were owned by Ferreira, owned by Niepoort, independant but having their port made by Niepoort or independant and making their own port. I just want to know when did a port ship which had the name Passadouro on the label. I can always do my research later to find out who the owner was at the time. What I don't want to do is to do a search for "Niepoort Passadouro" in order to find out the years in which Passadouro made an independant declaration. Just let me search on Passadouro, please, please, pretty please.

Does my worry make sense?


And don't end a sentence with a preposition, it upsets Julian.
Top Ports in 2023: Taylor 1896 Colheita, b. 2021. A perfect Port.

2024: Niepoort 1900 Colheita, b.1971. A near perfect Port.
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Is there a single name applicable across years, … ?

Post by jdaw1 »

If the title contains the word “Passadouro†, it can be found by searching for that. And there are separate SortOrder and DisplayName strings: it can be called “Passadouro† or “Quinta do Passadouro†, but sorted with the Ps. I don’t want to call it “Secundum†.

I stand by my suggestion that if a Quinta that has been tightly bound to one blender for three digits of years, we can include the name of the blender. Otherwise we don’t.
AHB wrote:And don't end a sentence with a preposition, it upsets Julian.
The parentheses functioned as a noun. So I wasn’t too upset.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Is there a single name applicable across years, … ?

Post by DRT »

AHB wrote:
Derek T. wrote:Taylor's Quinta do Vargellas would appear as Quinta do Vargellas (Taylor) and be placed alongside Taylor (and its other Quintas) in the index by having an index name of Taylor Vargellas.

This style should cover all eventualities and would ensure that Quintas that have changed hands or loyalty would be shown in the appropriate place in the index with a qualifying shippers name in
But this is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I didn't want the Quinta name to be associated with the owner as owners change over the years and it is not always obvious who the owner of a Quinta was at the time the wine was shipped.

Unless :idea: what you are suggesting means that I could do a sort on the name of the Quinta and get a list of all the Quinta's declarations regardless of the owner. Or are you suggesting that we have a list that includes all the permutations of Quinta Name, Owner, Vintage Year?

Take Passadouro as an example. I would want to be able to get a list of all the vintages that Passadouro have ever declared. I don't care whether they were owned by Ferreira, owned by Niepoort, independant but having their port made by Niepoort or independant and making their own port. I just want to know when did a port ship which had the name Passadouro on the label. I can always do my research later to find out who the owner was at the time. What I don't want to do is to do a search for "Niepoort Passadouro" in order to find out the years in which Passadouro made an independant declaration. Just let me search on Passadouro, please, please, pretty please.

Does my worry make sense?


And don't end a sentence with a preposition, it upsets Julian.
What I am suggesting is that for each phase of ownership or close association of a Quinta to one or more Shipper we have an entry in the index. The following would be in the index as display names:

Quinta do Vargellas (Taylor)
Quinta do Vargellas (Tiddlyponk - can't remember who it was!)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)
Quinta dos Malvedos (Graham)

Passadouro v Secundum is a different discussion. Secundum is a brand name used by Niepoort and I think we need to use it, even if we put it in ().

Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
KillerB
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2425
Joined: 22:09 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Sky Blue City, England

Post by KillerB »

Full listing of TPF TNs on its way to jdaw, have fun with it.
Port is basically a red drink
User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1851
Posts: 23613
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Is there a single name applicable across years, … ?

Post by jdaw1 »

Derek T. wrote:Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)
OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]
User avatar
KillerB
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2425
Joined: 22:09 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Sky Blue City, England

Need any help?

Post by KillerB »

jdaw1 wrote:
Derek T. wrote:Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)
OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]
Does anybody want help with the SQL definitions, data analysis, integrity, etc? How are you expecting to present this?
Port is basically a red drink
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Need any help?

Post by DRT »

KillerB wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
Derek T. wrote:Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)
OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]
Does anybody want help with the SQL definitions, data analysis, integrity, etc? How are you expecting to present this?
As (self nominated) Project Manager I am now going to declare that Scope Creep has reached unacceptable proportions and we are in danger of losing sight of the project objectives. The Project therefore requires to be re-baselined and all technical and user resources brought into line. I would suggest we do this as follows:
  1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith
  2. Derek T. and Uncle Tom to continue to work on data collection and preparation, adhereing to evolving data input standards so far as practicable
  3. AHB to lead a user workstream to produce a high level Output Based Specification outlining the functionality and outputs required from the database, including preferred naming and data sorting conventions.
  4. Jdaw to produced a Technical Specification setting out his proposed solution for meeting the requirements of the users.
  5. KillerB to provide technical consultancy on data structures as required.
  6. AHB to review sign-off Technical Specification on behalf of the user community
  7. Jdaw to produce the solution to specification
  8. AHB and others to test and sign-off solution prior to implementation
Does this sound reasonable?
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
User avatar
KillerB
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2425
Joined: 22:09 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Sky Blue City, England

Re: Need any help?

Post by KillerB »

Derek T. wrote:
KillerB wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
Derek T. wrote:Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)
OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]
Does anybody want help with the SQL definitions, data analysis, integrity, etc? How are you expecting to present this?
As (self nominated) Project Manager I am now going to declare that Scope Creep has reached unacceptable proportions and we are in danger of losing sight of the project objectives. The Project therefore requires to be re-baselined and all technical and user resources brought into line. I would suggest we do this as follows:
  1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith
  2. Derek T. and Uncle Tom to continue to work on data collection and preparation, adhereing to evolving data input standards so far as practicable
  3. AHB to lead a user workstream to produce a high level Output Based Specification outlining the functionality and outputs required from the database, including preferred naming and data sorting conventions.
  4. Jdaw to produced a Technical Specification setting out his proposed solution for meeting the requirements of the users.
  5. KillerB to provide technical consultancy on data structures as required.
  6. AHB to review sign-off Technical Specification on behalf of the user community
  7. Jdaw to produce the solution to specification
  8. AHB and others to test and sign-off solution prior to implementation
Does this sound reasonable?
No. It is not normal for the user community to sign-off the technical specs. There is no sign of unit testing or system testing, in fact a complete lack of test plans.

I would like to see a properly formed project plan with dependencies shown.
Port is basically a red drink
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15779
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Re: Need any help?

Post by DRT »

KillerB wrote:
Derek T. wrote:
KillerB wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
Derek T. wrote:Quinta de Vesuvio (Symington)
Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)
OK. So we introduce a new field. There is a perpetual name (“Quinta de Vesuvio†), and a series of vintage-specific names (“Quinta de Vesuvio (Ferriera)†). A table of declarations has columns of perpetual names; TNs are associated with a vintage-specific name.

1. Does that seem logical?
2. How on earth do we get that data?

[It will be represented as another table of four columns: PerpetualName; VintageSpecificName; YearFirst; YearLast. Most other tables will use the PerpetualName.]
Does anybody want help with the SQL definitions, data analysis, integrity, etc? How are you expecting to present this?
As (self nominated) Project Manager I am now going to declare that Scope Creep has reached unacceptable proportions and we are in danger of losing sight of the project objectives. The Project therefore requires to be re-baselined and all technical and user resources brought into line. I would suggest we do this as follows:
  1. Bickering about the use of the work Quinta, the history of ownership etc to cease forthwith
  2. Derek T. and Uncle Tom to continue to work on data collection and preparation, adhereing to evolving data input standards so far as practicable
  3. AHB to lead a user workstream to produce a high level Output Based Specification outlining the functionality and outputs required from the database, including preferred naming and data sorting conventions.
  4. Jdaw to produced a Technical Specification setting out his proposed solution for meeting the requirements of the users.
  5. KillerB to provide technical consultancy on data structures as required.
  6. AHB to review sign-off Technical Specification on behalf of the user community
  7. Jdaw to produce the solution to specification
  8. AHB and others to test and sign-off solution prior to implementation
Does this sound reasonable?
No. It is not normal for the user community to sign-off the technical specs. There is no sign of unit testing or system testing, in fact a complete lack of test plans.

I would like to see a properly formed project plan with dependencies shown.
Testing-schmesting! You consultants are always picking holes in other people's plans just to generate more chargeable days.
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Post Reply