| |
[XFUT lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw]
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> Well duplication can and does happen. I'd be willing to create a part
> authoring intent page, but as I'm not allowed to run cgi-scripts on my
> website, all the entries would have to be compiled manually which, if I get
> behind, could lead to the same result. I really can't see anyway to anyway
> to prevent duplication of effort absolutly. Anyone else have any ideas?
Well, I've been unable to locate any documentation for the long-range
plans for the Parts Tracker (pointers, anyone?) but I know what *I* would
prefer as a long-term solution:
An integration of the Tracker and Partsref, but complete. Ideally, this
would contain every physical part (or shortcut, complete assembly,
patterned part. . .)[1] ever made by TLC. Each part could have a photo if
it were not yet an official Ldraw part. Each part would then already have
an "official" part number and name.
The procedure for part authoring could then be as follows: find the part
you wish to model, and (via a cgi form) indicate that you plan to model
it. In the part database you would then be identified as "working" on
that part (it would probably be a good idea to limit each person to no
more than five or ten "working" parts at a time). After a set length of
time (e.g., 30 days) with no activity on the part (such as submitting a
"work in progress", submitting a model for voting, or just reaffirming the
desire to work on the part), the part would again be open for anyone to
work on (possibly using any "work in progress" material from earlier
authors). This time limit would of course not apply once a part was
submitted for voting (unless it were held, in which case even a shorter
time limit might be appropriate, so that others could fix if the author
lost interest).
I think that such a part database could be a helpful and effective way of
dealing with a variety of parts-authoring issues, particularly if
implemented in conjunction with a rating scheme for Ldrawn parts.
It would eliminate unnecessary duplication of effort.
By providing a complete database of parts, it would make
implementation of the "request" aspect of the Tracker easy.
It would help part naming (and the ever-popular pattern
numbering), by letting taxonomy discussions and decisions happen before
there is a .dat file sitting around that needs a name so it can get on the
Tracker (and, hopefully, out the door).
It would relieve the administrator of the need to respond
individually to requests for part and pattern numbers, since they would
already be known.
In fact, it could relieve the administrator of many concerns,
since administering the database as a collection of Lego parts and dealing
with numbering, taxonomy, etc. would not require any knowledge of CAD at
all, and so could be delagated to others.
If there were a way--separate from a "hold" vote on the
tracker--to note errors that needed fixing, reviewers could point these
out (even for files already in the Ldraw library), and those comments
would persist even as files were added to the library. Then it would be
easy to implement a way for authors to find files in need of fixs, and fix
them at their own discretion.
The downside, unfortunately, is that it would require a huge investment of
time and effort at start-up, and so cannot provide a short-term fix to the
problem of duplication of effort.
[1] Actually, I would also like abstract parts, so it could be more useful
for inventories and buying and selling (see:
http://news.lugnet.com/db/brictionary/?n=222
) but that isn't really relevent to Ldraw.org. . .
[2] See
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dat/parts/?n=3662
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~tgarriso/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
14 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
|
|
|
|
