Water Resources Division ITAC Home Page

See Jan's note below. I'd call this response a positive step forward. --Alice Sabatini, Senior Management Advisor

Alice,

Yes, I do think that it is important to move some historical data into BASIS+. We can provide our data model so that Isabelle and Mindy can work on how to import data. We'd like to get the system up and running first, but then their help would be most welcome.

One approach to maintaining some historical linkage given the change in cost center is to first establish the project in BASIS+ and assign the project number (yes, your description is correct). Then, when we do the data import of historical account information, attach the accounts to the correct new project. In this way, for example, if the Virginia District used account 4451-00100 for surface water in FY2002 and used 4451-00100 for surface water in 2003, we could associate both accounts with the same project in BASIS+. This would require some work when loading the historic data, but would allow at least for any BASIS+ reports to know that these two accounts are associated. I'm not sure what the answer is for FFS reports, but John did indicate that he intends to work with the FFS reports group when the cost center list has been finalized and see what report changes might be needed to meet these type of historic data questions.

Jan

--------------------------Forwarded email--------------------------

Jan: Your approach will work. I'm assuming that the 001 - 008 range will not be assigned at all in BASIS and that Water cost centers will each be assigned a unique number when they enter a data collection project (streamgaging). Thanks for pursuing this issue.

What's the solution to the problem John mentions below. I, too, am concerned about losing the history in FFS.

I think Isabelle has contacted you about a file format to move historical project description information into BASIS. Bob Hirsch told me last week that he feels strongly that this should be done and that all we need from you is the file format. Water folks will develop the interface based on that format. Is this possible? Again, we hate to lose this historical data. I know this creates issues with the assignment of project numbers--I think we could work through these issues as we develop the interface.

Alice

--------------------------Forwarded email--------------------------

Alice,

I've talked with John about the issue he raises below. One way to handle this is to not let 001 through 008 be assigned as a project number to any new project in BASIS+ (right now those numbers are part of the reserved range for Support projects that are not part of the standard naming convention). If we do not use these numbers, then the only accounts with 001 through 008 in the first part of the job number will be your streamgaging accounts. I have not yet ask the programmers to make this change--first wanted to run the issue past you.

Thanks
Jan

--------------------------Forwarded email--------------------------

Jan/Lee/Debbie:

Reviewing the email from the WRD streamgaging folks (requesting a standard account number structure for streamgaging) made me think of another issue. I wanted to get your feedback regarding a potential problem with the approach of automatically assigning project numbers in BASIS+. Debbie Burton is finalizing the list of FY 2003 cost centers. Some of these numbers will duplicate existing cost centers. Since the FFS ORGN table (where cost centers are stored) is keyed by FY, this is not a problem at the cost center level. So in FY 2002, cost center 4000 may represent one organization, and in FY 2003 it may represent an entirely different organization; this is acceptable since is a separate record in ORGN for each FY. But when dealing with account numbers (cost center + job number), the PROJ and SPRJ tables in FFS are not keyed by FY. So if cost center 4000 sets up a project in BASIS+ and it is assigned a project number of 006, account 4000-00600 has already been established in FFS for "Flood Studies" and has historical information from FY 2002 and prior fiscal years tied to it. This presents complications from the BASIS+/FFS interface standpoint (PROJ and SPRJ(s) already exist, and an "add" action would not work for a new account/sub-account number) and from a reporting standpoint (do we really want to change the PROJ/SPRJ record to have a different project description, etc. when historical information exists for another account/project?).

Comments?

John

Address questions or comments to Charles Merk, ITAC Secretary cfmerk on (703) 648-5680