| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
So the bigger question to me is how to create a singular, AFOL-friendly,
language agnostic (or as close to agnostic as possible) naming system that
is shared among all the sites and tools that use such a system. Couldn’t
this be a committee task of the LSC?
|
The LSC could address this, but the LSC members aren’t necessarily experts
on the color palette. And it’s an issue bigger than LDraw.org. So maybe a
cross-organization group is called for?
|
I know it’s not, by definition, a LSC issue, but perhaps it should be. Much
of the cross-site element “system” has been based on LDraw’s part numbering
and whatnot. If you look at Peeron, for instance, the parts are listed by
their LDraw number. Bricklink uses both the part number (where they exist)
and the LDraw part name.
I could be totally off base, but my thinking is that some group has to “own”
the naming/numbering, and what better group than LDraw.org? (With input from
relevant players, of course)
|
I think it’s a good idea for LDraw.org to lead the way on this. Of course, as
both of you mentioned, such project would include input from other groups.
| |
| |
If we’re going to talk about a ‘system’ for the color palette, I’d really
like to see some semi-official definitions for the various adjectives that
appear in the Daneglish color names. You mentioned ‘Earth Blue’. There’s
also ‘Earth Orange’ (and probably other ‘Earths’). Does ‘Earth’ have any
specific meaning? Darker? More brown? Establishing a glossary of
adjectives could help people navigate the color tree.
|
So help me out. In all seriousness, I think I’m missing why this is really
that important. What does our definition of “earth”, for instance, have to do
with the way you define “earth” type parts?
I can look into getting the names, but I have a feeling it won’t do anything
but add another reference tool to confuse things. I guess what I was
suggesting was that perhaps it would be best to simply start from scratch and
create an AFOL-friendly naming system standard based on the palette of colors
that’s been release. (There can’t be any surprises because all of the planned
for colors are there, as far as I know)
|
I think instead of coming together and trying to hash out universal naming
schemes for the community, it would be better to create a cross-reference that
links all of the different part systems together. In the new linking database,
each part would receive a unique ID and number conflicts between sites wouldn’t
be an issue anymore.
The impression I get from what I know of past attempts to unify part databases
is that some key stakeholders aren’t too flexible on renaming parts in their DBs
to come to a universal standard. This is why I believe a centralized
cross-reference would be a much better alternative, and one that has a much
better chance of being successful.
I could be wrong, of course. This is just my current thinking.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Color Names
|
| (...) While this has absolutly nothing to do with color names, it is a good idea that Steve and I have been kicking around for a couple of years now. I know Richard from BrikTrak has already built some translation tables between Peerl/LDraw and BL. (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.color, lugnet.lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Color Names
|
| (...) I know it's not, by definition, a LSC issue, but perhaps it should be. Much of the cross-site element "system" has been based on LDraw's part numbering and whatnot. If you look at Peeron, for instance, the parts are listed by their LDraw (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.color, lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
20 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
|
|
|
|
