Subject:
|
Re: Category Statement
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:26:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
757 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Manfred Moolhuysen wrote:
Moving this one to the top:
> 7. What is the difference between CATEGORY and KEYWORD, a.k. what belongs to
> the one and what to the other?
CATEGORY provides a method to place all parts in a comprehensive
classification system.
KEYWORDS provides a method to associate potential search-terms with a part.
CATEGORY is good for locating a part by drilling into the list of
categories. KEYWORDS are good for locating a part by doing text searches.
The Partsref pages <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/ldraw/parts/ref/> illustrate
how both of these meta-statements can be used. The list of categories are
built from the CATEGORY entries, and the Search box allows users to search
for specific words & terms contained in the KEYWORDS of parts (as well as
their names, numbers, and categories).
> 1. What is the exact purpose of the "0 CATEGORY" statement ?
The highest-level purpose is to make it easier to find parts in the part
library.
More specifically, the 0 CATEGORY meta-statement provides a way to specify
the categorization/classification of parts in the LDraw part library.
Currently, any program or service that recognizes 0 CATEGORY uses it as a
single-level categorization. Whatever text is included after CATEGORY is
used as a single category name. There was some discussion of whether 0
CATEGORY should support a multi-level classification system, but this was
never decided.
So the statement:
0 CATEGORY Minifig Accessory
would specify that the part containing this statement belongs in the
category "Minifig Accessory" (as opposed to belonging to the "Accessory"
subcategory of "Minifig").
> 2. Are there any "rules" for what you can mention in this statement ?
Rule 1. Don't specify any category that doesn't exist.
Rule 2. If you've got a new part (or several existing parts) that you feel
belong(s) in a new category, discuss it on lugnet.cad.dev or bring it up
with the parts administrator.
Currently, the 'categories' of the LDraw parts library are defined as (or
limited to) the first word in the part names. I'd like to get beyond this,
because the descriptive part names should not have to include all the
classification information.
To go back to the current example, I'd rather have part names like "Minifig
Sword" rather than "Minifig Accessory Sword". If the part has a 0 CATEGORY
setting, then there is slightly more freedom to give the part a name that
is easy to use.
> 3. Is it allowed to name more than one category, and what is the syntax then ?
That wasn't the intent of the 0 CATEGORY meta-statement. Categories were
meant to be a strict classification system, with the long-term possibility
of having sub-categories.
I strongly feel that it would be a good idea to have a multi-level
classification system for parts in the library.
> 4. I have a gut feeling that category names (if that what it is) should be
> restricted to some kind of "official" list of allowable category names, mainly
> to avoid that two people make up different names/spellings when they mean the
> same thing, or that complete fantasy names are submitted.
> Do you argree that we should avoid a uncontrolled growth of category names ?
Yes. I would like to restrict category names to the following:
Animal
Antenna
Arch
Arm
Bar
Baseplate
Belville
Boat
Bracket
Brick
Car
Cone
Container
Conveyor
Crane
Cylinder
Door
Electric
Exhaust
Fence
Flag
Forklift
Freestyle
Garage
Gate
Glass
Grab
Hinge
Homemaker
Hose
Jack
Ladder
Lever
Magnet
Minifig
Minifig Accessory
Panel
Plane
Plant
Plate
Platform
Propellor
Rack
Roadsign
Rock
Scala
Slope
Staircase
Support
Tail
Tap
Technic
Tile
Tipper
Tractor
Trailer
Train
Turntable
Tyre
Wedge
Wheel
Winch
Window
Windscreen
Wing
In the near future (like, update 2000-03), I would like to take a serious
attempt at reorganizing the part library. I'd like to have fewer
categories, with a better balance between the categories.
> 5. I remenber that there was also a "0 KEYWORD" statement. What is the purpose
> of this one?
The keywords meta-statement is intended to support locating parts by
performing text-searches. The 0 KEYWORDS meta-statement may specify any
terms the author feels would be useful in identifying the part, especially
terms which are not included in the part's filename, descriptive name, or
the category.
> 6. Any rules for "keyword" ?
We should probably start compiling a list of suggested keywords.
Keywords typically include alternate uses, geometric terms, synonyms (ie,
if the part name includes the term "rounded", a keyword might be "curved"),
and playthemes.
> 7. does "keyword" allows multiples, syntax ?
Since there is no limit on the number of keywords, but there is a (soft)
limit on command-line length, there may be multiple 0 KEYWORDS
meta-statements. Each 0 KEYWORDS meta-statement should be limited to 80
characters.
Entries on a 0 KEYWORDS meta-statement can be comma-delimited, or just
space-delimited.
0 KEYWORDS <words>, <more words>, ... <final words>
Each <words> entry can be any string of text. My feeling is that most
search-engines will perform searches on all the entries, as a single string
of text. So internal delimiters are probably not all that important.
> I realize these questions are partly overlapping, But this way I'm sure you
> know every point that is not clear to me.
Very good questions. Would you mind if I used your questions as the basis
for a Category/Keywords FAQ page?
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Category Statement
|
| (...) By all means! I was secretly hoping that my questions would lead to such a type of action. Feel free to rearange them into a clear set of instructions. You've earned my gratitude again, M. Moolhuysen. (24 years ago, 11-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Category Statement
|
| (...) In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes: (...) I would like to add those headers to my part files. I remember I've asked this before, I did get an answer back then, but it wasn't very clear to me. I discontinued the thread, because I didn't have (...) (24 years ago, 9-Jul-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
