The soft biometric database is made up of 3 seperate databases, each corresponding to different experiments and hence different types of data.
The databases are:
gaitannotate = Experiments ran from 2006? - 2009. Collecting absolute catergorical labels for the subjects within the soton gait database.
sbio2010 = experiment ran in 2010. First time comparative descriptions were explored. Also included a memory experiement.
sbio2011 = experiment ran in 2011. First time looking at comparative descriptions for facial images. Also included a detailed memory experiment with an  hour delay.

TO INSTALL:
The sql file provided includes all 3 databases. (I use windows and hence this will only detail instructions for windows users). I recommend downloading mysql community server for windows. This will install a mysql server on your PC. This should come with a program called mysql adminstrator. If you open this and connect to your mysql server. Then select restore backup and load the sql file in. The program mysql query browser is also a nice way to look around the database. 

GaitAnnotate
The main bulk of the information is stored within the annotation table. This stores every absolute description collected over the 3 year period. 
1.	User = annotator who gave the annotation. number represents ID within user table.
2.	subject = the subject being described. number respresents ID within subject table. -1 is a self description. The subject.leg_id is used within the video files and was used to initially start the database. The subject.id can be used to look up subject videos within the subjectvideos table and the corresponding videoId can be found within the videos table. 
3.	field = the soft feature being descriped. Number respresents ID within field table.
4.	value = the description of the feature. Number represents ID within value table.

Sbio2010 - http://sbio2010.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
Sbio2010 gets a bit more confusin as multiple types of annotations were collected during a single experiment. 
The experiment was ran as follows. There are two sections of the experiment and the Soton gait database subjects were split in to two halves, one set of subjects for each part of the experiment.
The first half collected perfect comparative annotations. Each annotator was shown a 'anchor' subject and asked to compare 5 other subjects to the anchor. To facilate this 10 subjects were defined 'anchors' and the remaining subjects were used to compare against them. 
The comparisons were made against the anchor. So that if 'taller' was used this meant the subject was taller than the anchor.
The first half comparisons can be found in table comparisons1:
1.	User = annotator id refers to user table.
2.	field = soft feature being described refers to table table.
3.	value = description of feature refers to value table
4.	certainity = annotators were given a chance to indicate how certain they were of the description - many didnt use this and let it default too 100%
5.	subject = the subject being compared to the anchor. refers to the gaitannotate.subject table.
6.	anchor = the anchor being compared against. refers to the gaitannotate.subject table.

The second half of the experiment briefly looked at the problem of memory with comparative and absolute descriptions. It was similar to the first half. An anchor subject was shown to the annotator untill they were ready to continue. Then the annotator was asked to compare 5 subjects to the anchor they had previously seen. Finally they were asked to describe the anchor using absolute descriptions.
The five comparative descriptions are within the comparisons2 table and this works the same as the previous comparison table. One thing to note is that the comparisons will get worse as time passes, so the fifth subject will have worse comparisons than the first due to the time delay. To find what order the comparisons were given in look the subject id up in the subjectgroups table. This table splits the subjects into the experiment halves, anchors and subject, and the order they are shown in:
1.	SubLetter = whether anchor or subject. 1= anchor (20 subjects) 2= subject (85) 3 = ignored.
2.	ExperimentLetter = what half of the experiment the subject was asssigned too. 1 = first half 2 = second 3 = ignored
3.	SubjectGroup = which annotators the subjects were shown to.  This corresponds with the usertosubjectgroup table. where suba1=anchor first half, subb1 = subjects first half, suba2 = anchor second half, subb2 = subjects second half.
4.	subjectGroupId = the order in which the subject was presented within the subject group. 1 = first to be shown to annotator, 5 = last to be shown.

The absolute annotation collected at the end of the second half of the experiment are kept within annotations. This works identically to the gaitannotate.annotation table, and all fields, values and subjects ids can be looked up within the corresponding gaitannotate tables. 

For more information look at D. A. Reid, M. S. Nixon and S. Stevenage. "Identifying Humans using Comparative Descriptions." in International Conference on Imaging for Crime Detection and Prevention, 2011.
Also if you visit the website and register a username you can try the experiment for your self. The data you submit will not be accessable though.

Sbio2011 - http://sbio2011.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
This experiment was again comprised of several parts. This experiment explored facial descriptions and memory. It was split into 3 parts. each exploring a different aspect.
The first part looked at a more extreme memory delay when comparing subjects. The students were shown an anchor on a projector. They observed him walking for 2 minutes. They then had an hour delay and were then asked to compare the anchor to a single subject from the gait database. The results of this are within the delaycomparison table. The field and value correspong with sbio2010's field and value tables. The subject IDs refer to gaitannotate.subject. 
This database also includes another comparisons1 table, before running this part of the experiment I collected more comparisons between the anchor 63 and the subjects used within this first part, this was done so I had more data to judge the accuracy of the delayed comparisons. Apart from the few extra new comparisons describing anchor 63 this is the same table as sbio2010.comparisons1.
The second part collects absolute annotations of facial images from the soton gait database. The table facecomparisons1 records the absolute descriptions given when the subject was shown on screen. 
Unlike previously the field and values are both stored within the field table. Previously we have had a separate ID for each value, in this case we apply a number ranging from 1-5. This represents a 5 point scale presented to the user. Only the two extreme values were giving labels for example for face length  the user was shown         Long [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Short       and as such I do not want to enforce labels on the unlabeled points.  If you look in the field table you will see lowLabel and highLabel. The lowLabel tells you the label for value 1 and the highLabel shows the label for value 5.
The third part of the experiment collects comparisons between facial images. Both anchor and subject were constantly displayed to the user. facecomparisons2 records this information in a similar format to the comparison tables from sbio2010. Like the 2nd part of this experiment a 5 point scaled was used. Instead of stating absolute extreme labels, comparative labels were used. for example              Longer [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Shorter                . The IDs were kept constant between the 2nd and 3rd parts - so the field table also details the extreme labels from the comparisons (lowComp and highComp).
We also collected a small bit of feedback at the end of this experiment. This is kept in the feedback table. It details whether the users found absolute (1) or comparative (5) descriptions easier (ranging from 1-5), what traits they didnt like and some comments about the experiment. 
Once again if you visit the website the experiment can be tried by registering an account.