Thanks tommyrot.

Later when I have more time, I'll probably have questions about getting iTunes to talk to my CD burner.

Incidentally, with Acrobat and the fill-in-forms thing, even if they had enabled fill in forms, if your company only had Reader, you would still not have been able to save the filled-in data. You can fill it in, and you can print it out like that, but you can't actually save the data. IIRC.

Oh, and I know that wasn't an answer to your question, and neither is this, but there are intermediate levels of the product, one of which does allow you to save fill-in form data, but doesn't allow you to alter the form.

Would we also be able to change the formatting of the fields?

I do forms with active fields pretty often. You should be able to change the characteristics of the fields, and you can edit the copy line by line. If you'd like to know for sure, and it's not a secret form, you could send me a copy and I could make sure that Acrobat would do what you need.

You can fill it in, and you can print it out like that, but you can't actually save the data. IIRC.

I know from recent experience this is 100% true.

Can this relational database be saved?

I'm working on a Access database to be used behind a website for my digital libraries class. It's on a China collection. Each catalogue item has one or more pieces. (eg A teapot has a lit and the pot itself, or serving dish with lid.) There can also be one or more photos per catalogue item, but the multiple photos do not correspond in any way to the multiple pieces.

So we have the main catalogue record table linked to the piece table via the catalogue number. And it is also linked to the photo table via the same field.

When we try to run a query displaying the information from all three tables, we get a record in the query for each of the possible combinations of photo and piece there are. All we need is one bigass record displaying all of the relevant info. Is this possible? I just cannot get my brain around how to make this work.

All we need is one record displaying all of the relevant info.

What is the "relevant info" in this case?

eta: Also, did the photo stuff I sent you work?

Yeah, it did. Thanks. When I first inserted the photos they did not show. After I closed and reopened they were there. Sometimes I think Access is just playing with me.

Edited because my project partner's husband just figured out how to fix this.

Okay, it's fixed, but from what you said, it sounds like all you needed to do was set a condition in the catalogue number field equal to the item you want to look at.

Thanks DX. I'm going to try that on the copy I'm playing with, just so I figure out how to do it myself.

Can this relational database be saved?

I wonder if there is anywhere to discuss subjects like this on Buffistas? It occurs to me more and more frequently that the main concept in relational DB's is old and busted. Everywhere I go I read about people hassling with table joins, or I see people who are all proud in the chest about whipping the data model into revealing a reality. Feh. Objects have parts.

Anyway. Sue, your query is unconstrained. It needs an 'and', whereby catalogue numbers can be excluded, as DX said. Ask yourself "What is a legitimate set?" Perhaps a table that describes a legit set will help … Teapot has a (Teapot Lid and Teapot Pot) and. Serving Dish has (Serving Dish Lid and Serving Dish).