Subject:
|
Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Fri, 8 Jan 1999 02:37:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2953 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpien@ctp.IWANTNOSPAM.com> writes:
> > Looking at this year's red Ninja sets, it also may make sense to split
> > Ninja sets into two or three sub-categories -- the blue ones, the black
> > ones, and the red ones.
>
> I know you said you made this up for the sake of an example, but Nik and
> I got in a row about this last night so I thought I'd share. I have to
> credit him for making me scan all the sets and their figs. There don't
> actually seem to BE any blue ninjas! Based on TLG descriptions and
> examination of the sets, there are the following types of minifigs in
> the sets:
>
> - Samurai: blue torsos and arms, grey helmet "leather plate" that takes
> the horns via clip
> - Shogun: Like a samurai, but white torso/arms, grey "leatherplate"
> breast armor and white leatherplate clip helmet
> - Ninjas: These come in 4 colors, plus a special one
> All grey with grey "cloth" face cover
> All black with black face cover
> All red with red face cover (the "red ninjas")
> All white with white face cover (the "red ninja princess")
> Red Ninja Master: all red with white beard and 2x2 garbage can lid hat
> - Robbers/Bandits: Red torso, black hat (either the same helmet as
> Samurai, but black, or black pirate/elf/santa droopy hat)
>
> This is very confusing, there are a lot of different factions.
> Prototypical, actually (ever play Sword of the Samurai??... to win you
> have to play everyone else against each other)
>
> But if I were going to categorise these sets I don't think I'd use the
> ninja color to do it.
Wow! -- how many kids get to have that kind of a LEGO-geek discussion with
their dad? :)
Your categorizations above sound a lot better than colors! :)
> > I can see ANWB falling under an unofficial category called "airline" (or
> > somesuch) which falls under an unofficial category called "promotional"
> > (or somesuch).
>
> Well, you know this topic gets me worked up so I will let it slide for a
> while. But I strongly feel promotional is not a category. It's a
> modifier on availability.
I'm probably using the wrong terminology -- This whole OO-data-modeling
thing is still fairly new to me, while you've been doing it for years. Let
me try to "home in" more on what I meant...
Although promotional is more of a modifier to me than it is a category, both
modifiers and categories are just plain old mathematical sets to me. So
when I say "category" I really mean "set." But I hesitate to use "set" too
much because it's confusing with the concept of a "LEGO set." :)
In terms of modifiers (or "properties" of objects), I want to steer way
clear of text-based or enum-based modifiers on objects. I want all
modifiers in the DB to be pointers (references, two-way) to other objects.
In other words, if some LEGO set is listed as being a vehicle, it means that
there's a reference to the object that means "being a vehicle."
Sounds like there'll need to be at least two property lists inside a LEGO
set object -- one for modifiers and one for categories. Or, there could be
one list, and inside the object for "being a vehicle," it could know that
it's a modifier and not a category. When a data sheet on a set is formatted
for display, the object for "being a vehicle" will need to be swizzled in
anyway so that its name can be fetched. The screen-name might be "vehicle"
or "Vehicle" or "is a vehicle" or it might be in some other language than
English. (It'll be up to the "being a vehicle" object to decide how its
name gets displayed at runtime.)
> One small point, ANWB is not an airline, it's an auto club, I think,
> which is why the (second set at least) subject matter is auto repair,
> calling for help, trucks with their logo on them that can haul disabled
> cars, etc.
Aha!
> > The Promotional/Christmas category is probably the same unofficial
> > category as the Holiday/Christmas category -- just under a different name.
> > So maybe the whole unofficial "holiday" category belongs as a sub-category
> > of "promotional"...
> >
> > It's interesting to look at the Promotional/Soccer category vs. the
> > Promotional/SHELL category. In the case of Soccer, it's actually its
> > own *tightly coherent* theme -- (and as a side note, probably an unofficial
> > sub-category of Town to some degree) -- while in the case of SHELL, the
> > sets aren't their own "theme" but rather clear-cut instances of other
> > themes, such as Town, Fright Knights, UFO, first-year Adventurers, etc.
> > Nevertheless, the Shell sets need their own sub-category of "promotional."
> > So -- in other words, the difference between Soccer and SHELL here is that
> > sets within the Soccer category only belong to one category, whereas sets
> > within the SHELL category belong to two categories: SHELL and some other
> > theme-category. If you collect all Space sets, you wouldn't want to
> > miss out on a U.F.O. set just because it was released through SHELL --
> > especially when it has a 4-digit regular LEGO set number.
>
> See, this is where calling SHELL a category falls apart. SHELL is not a
> category, just a way to get sets. The shell soccer sets are
> town/soccer/holland specific modified by the availability through shell.
OK, I'm definitly confusing you by my unwashed use of OO terminology --
sorry!
What I want to capture is the fact that there is the concept of a
mathematical-set A which contains all LEGO-sets which were sold by SHELL
as well as the concept of a
mathematical-set B which contains all LEGO sets pertaining to soccer at
minifig scale.
Note that B just happens to be a proper-subset of A (but it doesn't
necessarily have to be that way; there just aren't currently any other
soccer sets). So we wouldn't model B as a subset of A. But we might model
some new set C as a subset of A, where C is the mathematical-set which
contains all LEGO sets pertaining to soccer -and- sold by SHELL. C would
also then be a subset of B. C could be constructed on-the-fly or could
actually be set up as part of the taxonomy...that's a nice subject for
debate.
So my basic premise is that categories are (a) non-exclusive and (b) fuzzy.
(Maybe that's a bad bastardization of the term "category.") In other words,
categories can overlap.
Examples: If I categorize you as a Libertarian, I mean that you are an
element of the set of all people who either identify themselves as being
Libertarian. If I categorize you as a LEGO fanatic, I mean that you are an
element of the set of all people who love LEGO. If I categorize you as a
train-head, I mean that you are an element of the set of all people who love
trains.
> > I notice that the McDonald's sets aren't in the DB yet. That'll need to
> > be a sub-category for McDonald's and then sub-categories within McDonald's
> > for the individual promotions (I think there were at least 3 years that
> > they did them). One year (I think '89) they were offically called "LEGO
> > Motion" sets. So "LEGO Motion" would be an official sub-category of
> > "McDonald's," which is an unofficial or official (not sure which) sub-
> > category of "promotional," which is an unofficial category.
>
> Ditto. Just dump this, it doesn't buy you anything.
The mathematical-set which contains the 8 LEGO-sets in the "McDonald's LEGO
Motion" series is a bona fide mathematical set. And it's a bona fide subset
of the mathematical-set which contains all LEGO-sets released by McDonald's.
> > The promo set 3047 Trick or Treat set (a.k.a. the "Orange Halloween
> > Bucket") is arguably also a FreeStlye set. (Check out the makeup of
> > the pieces -- right down to the stoopit Timmy minifig -- and the artistic
> > style on the bucket and the presence of an idea poster -- normally only
> > found in FreeStyle.) But of course it would have to be clearly designed as
> > UNofficially belonging to FreeStyle. And if 3047 is not part of FreeStyle,
> > then it's at least part of something that FreeStyle is also a part of --
> > they're too similar not to be.
>
> Ditto. This is a freestyle set that just happens to be only available at
> Target.
Again, its categorization as a holiday set or as a promotional set or as a
Target exclusive -doesn't- detract from the fact that it's unofficially a
FreeStyle set. The sum of the fuzzy quantifiers doesn't have to equal 100%
-- that's part of the magic of this.
> > The "Samsonite" category is likely to have the same reorganization
> > challenges as the "DACTA" and "Promotional" categories -- with lots of
> > overlapping for different views of the data.
>
> which is why again, I'd mark a set as Town (modified as available
> through DACTA) instead of DACTA/Town
Yup, totally agreed. As long as we agree that DACTA is still an overlapping
tree of categories (or set of sets, if you will).
> > Star Wars isn't a part of Space in the sense that it's not part of the
> > LEGO Space System (official category), but it's certainly part of the same
> > category that Space (capital "S") is. And that "space" super-category
> > would also contain Launch Command, Space Port, and probably also the lunar
> > lander set from the 70's, and the Technic space shuttle. Again, Launch
> > Command would still be a 100% official sub-category of the Town System
> > category.
>
> You lost me here. These sets have subject matter of space but differ
> significantly. LC and SP are properly part of town, as they are present
> day sets at minifig scale.
I threw ya there because of the capital/lowercase t and s... It's something
Joshua and I used to use a lot when we talked about Space stuff.
Anyway, Launch Command and Space Port are elements of:
- town
- LEGO Town System
- space
but not
- LEGO Space System
:)
The "LEGO Space System" mathematical-set is a 100% element of the "space"
mathematical-set, while the "Launch Command" and "Space Port" sets are more
like 25% elements of the "space" mathematical-set.
> The Technic SS is part of Technic.
...But also slightly part of "space," I argue. (Though not part of "LEGO
Space System.")
> I think it's important to capture
> subject matter affinity but not introduce supercategories for it.
> Perhaps have a subject matter hierarchy modeled and have sets have an
> affinity to it. That handles the sets that have more than one subject
> matter (like the hydronauts/stingray hybrid, or a castle minifig set)
Can you give a couple concrete examples? I'm not sure I get your meaning
but it sounds really cool.
> [...]
> > |-- foo1 (unofficial sub-category of Town System)
> > | |-- Time Cruisers (official theme; sub-category of foo1)
> > | \-- Time Twisters (official theme; sub-category of foo1)
>
> :-) At first I thought this was FOOL not FOO - ONE ! :-) and thought you
> were editorialising. :-)
Maybe it was a subtle jab at TC/TT. ;-)
> [...]
> > And Larry can have monorail be a fractional sub-category of trains. :)
>
> Actually, probably not, they are incompatible.
Sorry, I gotcha on the lowercase "t" in "trains" there. :)p
I love your tree below, BTW! -- much more logical.
> You can't run trains on
> monorail track or vice versa. However the sets probably would have
> strong affinities in the subject matter hierarchy...
>
> Transport
> Land
> Fixed Guideway
> Two rail
> Steel rails/wheels
> Conventional Train (point A)
> Steel rails/ rubber wheels
> Paris Metro
> Concrete rails/rubber wheels
> Various airport people movers
> One Rail
> Concrete rails/steel wheels
> Conventional Monorails (point B)
>
> with most Lego train tying to point A and Lego Monorail tying to point
> B via affinity
That's awesome! Is "affinity" another way of saying fuzzy percentage? If
you are 95% Libertarian, does it mean that you have a very high affinity for
that attribute?
> > Officially, ZNAP is its own whole system -- supposedly completely separate
> > from Technic -- but it's interesting to note that ZNAP sets have actual
> > Technic pieces in them -- that is, actual Technic pegs, gears, and motors.
> > In that sense, it's almost more like Technic than ThrowBots/Slizer because
> > there are more classic Technic pieces in regular technic colors in ZNAP than
> > in ThrowBots/Slizer.
>
> ?? Lots of town sets have technic pieces in them too.
Good point. OK, never mind about that ZNAP<->TECHNIC.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories
|
| (...) It all started harmlessly enough ;-) I said, "there are red ninjas and blue ninjas, the old ones are blue, the new ones are red..." and Nik said, "no there aren't Dad, there are no blue ninjas", and I said "what?" and he told me about the (...) (28 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Official and Unofficial theme categories
|
| (...) :-) (...) I know you said you made this up for the sake of an example, but Nik and I got in a row about this last night so I thought I'd share. I have to credit him for making me scan all the sets and their figs. There don't actually seem to (...) (28 years ago, 7-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
37 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
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
