 | | Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
|
(...) Well that's kind of my point. LCD is an acronym, just as LUGNET(tm) is. So I don't see LCD standing for "LEGO(r) <mumble> <mumble>" as being bad or wrong per se any more than that LUGNET stands for "LEGO Users Group NETwork" being bad or wrong (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
|
(...) For anyone who (else) who doesn't know what 'ontology' means, and doesn't want to depend on context to derive the meaning, (...) Steve (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
|
(...) Hmm. I read this as "Larry thinks LAD and KACS meant for the LCD data to go *in* the DAT files". But reading section 1.2, (URL), makes it clear that the data is intended to be position in files outside the DATs. But the bottom line is that (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
|
(...) I'd say it should be reduced - there are potentials for generalization in the data. (...) I think the current document suffers from confusing connection possibilities with other physical limitations -- for instance, a car base ((URL)) has a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
|
(...) I think you got it just right. The LCD has to be associated with a geometry, or it's meaningless. It would make sense to use LDraw for the LCD, especially if the 'L' is for 'LDraw'. ;) Steve (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
