| |
In lugnet.admin.general, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) writes:
> I think there is some value in classifying real TLG models separately
> from MOCs. You, Todd, could have
>
> lugnet.cad.dat.sets
> lugnet.cad.dat.creations
>
> Which aren't completely self-obvious, but nothing's perfect.
I like those. I think "sets" is a lot clearer than anything containing the
letters "tlg", especially when placed alongside "parts" or "elements" and
"creations." It's also nice and short, easy to type. :)
OK, let's summarize all of the suggestions/possibilities presented so far:
1. lugnet.cad.dat \ One of these for
lugnet.cad.dat.creations / creations/MOCs
If .creations were created, the main .dat group could nicely be nixed.
The problem with not having a main .dat group, though, is the same as
not having a general catch-all group -- where do new paradigms go as they
are spontaneously invented? I'd favor keeping .dat and not creating a
sub-category for MOCs/creations.
2. lugnet.cad.dat.sets - for official models/sets
I think we clearly could benefit from this.
3. lugnet.cad.dat.sets.alt - for alternative models using parts from
official sets
There are three subclasses of alternative models:
i. Those which are alternative models of official sets and which
include official printed building instructions for the model.
ii. Those which are built by close inspection of an alternative model
shown on the back of a box, but for which official building
instructions are not known.
iii. Those which are entirely fan-created alternative models -- such as
the type for which JosephG is famous.
I would associate all three of these model types more closely with one
another and with official sets than with completely free-form MOCs, and
would want to link to these types from the sets-DB just as I would link
to an LDraw version of an official main model from the sets-DB.
Arguably, type (i) alternative models really belong in the pure .sets
group, rather than the .sets.alt group since they are based on official
building instructions. But what about type (ii) alternative models?
We'll never know whether some of these are "correct" since the
instructions aren't given...yet many of them will be small and simple
enough to be correct for sure -- do those really belong in the .sets
group or the .sets.alt group?
For the reasons above, it may simply make the most sense for the .sets
group to include everything that would have gone in the .sets.alt
group. Other opinions?
4. lugnet.cad.dat.parts - for LDraw parts development
We clearly need this, for several reasons.
I know that it is traditional to refer to parts as "parts" and not
as "elements" -- and maybe this is because parts files can go "below"
the LEGO-element level of dataification -- but would it still be better
to call the group lugnet.cad.dat.elements since producing LDraw versions
of all the official LEGO elements is the ultimate goal?
On the other hand, although the mathematical relation between the word
"element" and the word "set" is endearing, it may not be entirely
intuitive or correct. That is, if a LEGO set is what you get when you
buy something -- a box, pieces, and all that -- then catalogs and holey
plastic bags and even the boxes are -technically- elements of the set.
Still, TLG refers to the plastic and rubber and cloth pieces collectively
as "LEGO elements."
<deep breath>
Thoughts?
5. lugnet.cad.dat.assemblies \
lugnet.cad.dat.cookbook \
lugnet.cad.dat.encyclopedia \ One of these for design snippets,
lugnet.cad.dat.ideas / sub-assemblies, building tricks,
lugnet.cad.dat.recipes / educational constructions, etc.
lugnet.cad.dat.sub /
The name here needs to be carefully chosen (or documented) to fit the
whole range of things that the group encompasses. The words "cookbook"
and "recipes" are good analogies, but a bit on the cute side.
As JohnVZ said, "I'm warming up to the idea of a submodel group, too.
I'm envisioning several of the 'masters' posting their versions of
retractable landing gear."
Here are some examples of the types of things this group would be
perfect for:
http://carol.wins.uva.nl/~leo/lego/stewart.html
http://carol.wins.uva.nl/~leo/lego/killough.html
http://carol.wins.uva.nl/~leo/lego/spherical.html
http://carol.wins.uva.nl/~leo/lego/office.html
http://carol.wins.uva.nl/~leo/lego/cats.html
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/7589/MyCats.html
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/7589/GumBall.html
http://www.baseplate.com/ideas/minifig-scale/deco/
http://www.baseplate.com/ideas/minifig-scale/wall/
http://www.baseplate.com/ideas/minifig-scale/roof_tiles/
http://www.baseplate.com/ideas/minifig-scale/wall_lamp/
http://www.baseplate.com/ideas/minifig-scale/blast/
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/sean/pictures/handheldweapons/handheldweapons.htm
What I really am dying to create eventually is the ability for users to
be on the page of some (any) part and think to themselves, "That's a
weird part, how would you use that?" and then click a link which *shows*
them some ways that people have used it. Since the underlying DB would
be able to do cross referencing of parts, you should be able to jump into
that DB from a part page, a theme page, a model-topic page, a scoped
search, etc.
This is similar in theory to the Constructopedia research project at
the E&L Group at the MIT Media Lab,
http://el.www.media.mit.edu/groups/el/Projects/constructopedia/kego.html
but going beyond Technic and beyond a purely educational focus --
to encompass all types of LEGO elements, all reasons for building,
and linking in with the individual-parts-for-sale markets.
Doing this entirely via .DAT content posted to a special newsgroup
isn't the most perfect way to make this happen, but it's getting the
ball rolling in the right direction that matters.
6. lugnet.cad.dat.scenes - for complex meta-models (scenes)
We haven't seen too many "scenes" yet, perhaps because people are having
so much fun designing individual models or perhaps because there just
isn't a large enough collection of models out there to pick & choose from
yet. I think as time goes on, however, there will be more and more
scenes...the law of increasing returns applies here.
Copyright/credit/authorship issues associated with this -could- be
worked around entirely by requiring that the author of a model agrees
that it is fair game for someone else to include it in something they
create, so long as they give credit where credit is due or not ever
deleting any '0 Author:' lines.
Anything I missed? Any new ones? (Don't hesitate to speak up!)
In boiling the final selection of sub-groups down to a nice list, we need to
keep a couple things in mind:
- Newsgroup names sort alphabetically on the web pages and in newsreaders.
- Newsgroup name components should be as short yet intuitive as possible.
- The names appearing on the web pages can be longer if necessary. For
example, a group named lugnet.cad.dat.alt would not be shown as "alt"
or "Alt" but as "Alternative Models."
So here is one possibility:
lugnet <=> Home
.cad CAD
.dat DAT Files
.ideas Ideas
.models Models
.parts Parts
.scenes Scenes
.sets Sets
My final comments:
- The more subgroups there are, the more odd (unorthogonal) it seems if
models belong in the plain old .dat group. Keeping a plain old .dat group
around also means that it's possible to accidentally post something there
which really belongs in a subgroup.
- It wouldn't be prohibitively difficult to wipe out .cad.dat and move its
existing articles into subgroups (these would mostly be parts and models
at this point).
--Todd
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| (...) <snipped "summary"> <following not to be taken seriously in any way> Summarize? I started to read that "summary" and quickly sensed something amiss. Glancing up at the subject header, I noted the length of the post - 186 lines. Whoa! That is (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| (...) I think that having a cad.dat.creations would be a great idea but I have to agree, What would happen to cad.dat? (...) I think these belong in this subcatagory. (...) I think that these should be considered MOCs, but with the set as a (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes: <Snipped the Lengthy but interesting Message> What about new Primitives? Would they go into the .parts subcatagory? Also, I'm somewhat talented at making the small bitmaps for new parts. Would they (Dat (...) (26 years ago, 13-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lugnet.cad.dat heirarchy
|
| On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 00:24:43 GMT, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) wrote: [Big snip] I think there is some value in classifying real TLG models separately from MOCs. You, Todd, could have lugnet.cad.dat.sets lugnet.cad.dat.creations Which aren't (...) (26 years ago, 3-Apr-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
27 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
|
|
|
|
