5 Replies Latest reply on Apr 28, 2016 7:50 AM by daroloson

    Categories within categories with value lists?

    daroloson

      So I've got data on all applications run by our Mac users and the goal is to have a report

      by descending percentage use for the various categories but the apps fall into categories

      and sometimes an app is really a set of apps. e.g.

       

      http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~daroloso/SampleReport.png

       

      Should I be trying to do this with value lists or something completely different?

       

      Dani Roloson

        • 1. Re: Categories within categories with value lists?
          erolst

          Not sure what you mean by …

          daroloson wrote:

           

          Should I be trying to do this with value lists

           

          … but what you should have is probably a join (or child) table, like AppInCategory, if …

          daroloson wrote:

          the apps fall into [different?] categories

          Not sure how to handle app suites; that depends on your business rules, or what you want to express: treat MS Office as one app with 4 different category association, or as 4 different ones, each with a single category?

          • 2. Re: Categories within categories with value lists?
            daroloson

            The powers that be don't care about Excel, Powerpoint, etc. only Word and they're separate apps unlike LibreOffice.

             

            My initial concept was

             

            AppCategories = ( Apple, Math, WordProc )

             

            Apple = ( Preview, Safari )

            Math = ( MATLAB, Maple, R )

            WordProc = ( Word, TeX )

             

            MATLAB = ( MATLAB 2015a, MATLAB 2015b )

            Maple = ( Maple 2015, Maple 18 )

            R = ( RStudio, R ) [ it will actually be R.app so no recursion ]

             

            TeX = ( TeXShop, TeXworks )

             

            which would be like nested value lists which might be the wrong approach.

            • 3. Re: Categories within categories with value lists?
              erolst

              daroloson wrote:

              which would be like nested value lists which might be the wrong approach.

               

              Well, this is a relational database, not a traditional programming environment; so lists, dictionaries and arrays are usually just intermediate means – generated from data stored in records, used for data manipulation or UI requirements – not the actual containers / containing structures (never mind how FileMaker itself stores what it presents to us as fields and records).

               

              Off the top of my head, I would suggest this structure:

               

              App --< AppInCategory >-- Category

               

              Within the app table you could probably use a foreign key and a type field (app, app pack) to implement a self-join (where appPack --< apps); since this offers a unified interface against the join table, you'd be free to associate a pack and/or (only) its included apps with categories.

               

              The actual implementation would depend on your reporting needs (which would be based on the join table).

               

              daroloson wrote:

              AppCategories = ( Apple, Math, WordProc )

              That's a heterogenous bunch if I've ever seen one …

              • 4. Re: Categories within categories with value lists?
                daroloson

                I don't get to pick the categorizations ... I get to implement.

                 

                The only thing I get is the app name and the count of users so I need to trundle

                through something to categorize and subcategorize.

                 

                Maybe I'll start with a rigged subsummary report and work my way backwards.

                • 5. Re: Categories within categories with value lists?
                  daroloson

                  So the analogy I'm going to try is State/County/City where things can have a State and County without a City.