Subject:
|
Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dat.parts
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:45:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4223 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dat.parts, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> Steve Bliss wrote:
> > I think this is a Peeron question more than an LDraw question.
>
> Sorry, I didn't know that, I thought it was an LDraw issue.
No big deal. :) Peeron uses ~Use tags, LDraw doesn't.
> > It kind of depends on the direction you're coming from -- as far as
> > accurately recording the inventory, I can see your point. The part
> > in the set is 44237, not 2456.
>
> It's also the id currently in use by TLC and I think it's easier to
> mimic their system as close as possible, than to reinvent a wheel.
I feel that it's unlikely that all fans are going to change their behaviour/data
whenever TLC makes a switch. There are too many of us, and we all have
different levels of access, awareness and sensitivity to changing TLC data.
> > But come at it from the other direction: which sets contain one or more 2x6
> > bricks? In that case, it's easier to find the answer if all 2x6 bricks are
> > inventoried with the same number.
>
> Aliasing is the reply. 44237 and 2456 would both lead to the single page
> and the sets containing both 44237 and 2456 would be referenced from it.
Yep. But the raw data is also exportable, and aliasing makes it more
complicated. And the more complicated the underlying data, the less useful for
other sites. So it's more than just a matter of making one site (Peeron) run
well.
BTW, what happens if you search for 44237 on Peeron? You get a note, directing
you to look for 2456 instead. Not as elegant as aliased entries, but it still
gets the job done.
> This is not the only example, TLC had multiple mold numbers from same
> looking parts in the past (transparent, chrome etc).
Yep.
> BTW: Is there any official way to get TLC's Bill of material for each
> released set? That would really simplify the inventorying.
Nope. It's not going to happen. The way TLC handles the data is extremely
different than how us fans would like to use it. TLC is interested in data that
helps them (a) design the sets, (b) manufacture the parts, (c) produce the sets
(along with everything else they need to do). Their data goes a lot deeper than
just "we need 4 red 2x4 bricks for set X".
And it would be significant work for TLC (ie, it would cost them money) to
extract fan-useful data from the web of confidential manufacturing data.
Now just watch Jake come online tomorrow, and announce that they're going to
start sending all their set inventories to Peeron. ;)
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
| (...) But I just don't think there is a need to some big changes. For example LEGO's internal taxonomy is simply horrid (AFAIK). (...) Hm, I don't think so. For example some set references 44237 and I don't have any 44237... Does that mean I can (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: ~Use and ~Moved
|
| (...) Sorry, I didn't know that, I thought it was an LDraw issue. (...) It's also the id currently in use by TLC and I think it's easier to mimic their system as close as possible, than to reinvent a wheel. (...) Aliasing is the reply. 44237 and (...) (20 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
