===Using XMLPipeDB match to Validate the XML Results from the TallyEngine===

===Using XMLPipeDB match to Validate the XML Results from the TallyEngine===

On the command line ('cmd'' on Windows), I entered the folder ''Bklein7_Week9'' to access the XML data files. The first match I ran was designed to identify matches of any ordered locus name following the pattern VC_#### in the UniProt XML file. The command sequence used is as follows:

On the command line (''cmd'' on Windows), I entered the folder ''Bklein7_Week9'' to access the XML data files. The first match I ran was designed to identify matches of any ordered locus name following the pattern VC_#### in the UniProt XML file. The command sequence used is as follows:

  java -jar xmlpipedb-match-1.1.1.jar "VC_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]" < "uniprot-taxonomy%3A243277.xml" >       

  java -jar xmlpipedb-match-1.1.1.jar "VC_[0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]" < "uniprot-taxonomy%3A243277.xml" >       

***This ID column was analyzed in Microsoft Excel to investigate why there were 7664 entries present (as opposed to the consistent count of 3831 in SQL and XMLPipeDB Match).

***This ID column was analyzed in Microsoft Excel to investigate why there were 7664 entries present (as opposed to the consistent count of 3831 in SQL and XMLPipeDB Match).

****The analysis in Excel revealed that the variations of the the gene IDs with and without underscores were replicates of one another. Presumably, these gene IDs were duplicated during the process of exporting the gene database to account for a formatting issue pertaining to underscores. Regardless, this discovery means that only half of the 7664 entries were unique gene IDs. This leaves us with '''3832''' unique IDs, which is still one more than was expected.

****The analysis in Excel revealed that the variations of the the gene IDs with and without underscores were replicates of one another. Presumably, these gene IDs were duplicated during the process of exporting the gene database to account for a formatting issue pertaining to underscores. Regardless, this discovery means that only half of the 7664 entries were unique gene IDs. This leaves us with '''3832''' unique IDs, which is still one more than was expected.