Adapt names in database schema

[cboelling]

Originally posted by @alvarosaurus in #2 (comment) and transferred to this new issue to separate this and the original issue.

Some comments on the names used in the database scheme
This is the database scheme as it is implemented:

+--------------------------------+
| Tables_in_audiogrambase        |
+--------------------------------+
| audiogram_data_point           |
| audiogram_experiment           |
| audiogram_publication          |
| facility                       |
| individual_animal              |
| method                         |
| publication                    |
| sound_pressure_level_reference |
| taxon                          |
| test_animal                    |
+--------------------------------+

For future database implementations, please consider:

• database name "audiogrambase" is not bad, but there are datasets in the database which are not audiograms
• 'audiogram_data_point' could be just 'data_point'
• 'audiogram_experiment' could be 'experiment'
• 'audiogram_publication' is a linking table between 'audiogram_experiment' and 'publication', so should be 'experiment_publication'
• 'sound_pressure_level_reference' could be 'spl_reference'
• 'test_animal' is a linking table between 'individual_animal' and 'audiogram_experiment', so where does 'test' come from?

The general structure of the database is practical, but has limitations, for example when an audiogram is deleted, then undeleting it is not possible, as this would require a more normalized structure (as found in a CMS).

[cboelling]

For future database implementations, please consider:

* database name "audiogrambase" is not bad, but there are datasets in the database which are not audiograms

* 'audiogram_data_point' could be just 'data_point'

I agree.

* 'audiogram_experiment' could be 'experiment'

I agree.

* 'audiogram_publication' is a linking table between 'audiogram_experiment' and 'publication', so should be 'experiment_publication'

I agree.

* 'sound_pressure_level_reference' could be 'spl_reference'

I would not recommend using abbreviations.

* 'test_animal' is a linking table between 'individual_animal' and 'audiogram_experiment', so where does 'test' come from?

"test" is used here simply as a synonym for "experiment".

The general structure of the database is practical, but has limitations, for example when an audiogram is deleted, then undeleting it is not possible, as this would require a more normalized structure (as found in a CMS).

I think, also in the light of our recent discussions to include data that reflect a variety of measurement objectives, i.e. critical ratios and others apart from auditory thresholds, we should conduct a review of our datamodel at some point.

The issue at hand for starters aims at harmonizing the terms used in the current version of the metadata scheme and the web interface.