Subject:
|
Re: [PARTS] - Header keyword line
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 18:45:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
969 times
|
| |
|
|
On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:55:56 GMT, "Adviesbureau Noord/Zuidlijn"
<nzlijn@euronet.nl> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm thinking of adding a keywords line to my (updated) part files, but I
> don't know much about the functionality of this feature. A look in the FAQ
> didn't help me either. Could someone answer these questions I have ?
>
> 1. What programs use the 0 KEYWORD-line (or was it CATEGORY) ?
None that I know of. If we can all agree on a general definition of
these two meta-commands, I will add support for them to LDAO.
My current definition for the meta-commands are (note: I've violated at
least some of these rules):
0 CATEGORY specifies a single category that the part should belong in.
The category meta-command should only specify a single category. For
example:
0 CATEGORY Brick
- Categories are not case-sensitive.
- There should be at most one CATEGORY meta-statement in a part file.
- If there is no CATEGORY meta-statement in a part file, the default
category will be the first word from the part's descriptive name.
- Multi-word categories should be allowed, such as "Decorated Tiles".
- Unless there's a clear indication that a new category is needed, and
will be used, only existing categories should be used in new parts.
There are two possible extensions for 0 CATEGORY. Unfortunately, these
extensions conflict.
The first extension would be to allow multiple categories. This would
allow a piece to be listed in more than one location. This could be
accomplished by allowing a comma-separated list of categories in the
meta-command.
The second extension would be to allow a hierarchy of categories, a
complete classification system. This could also be accomplished by
allowing a comma-separated list of category entries in the meta-command.
My thought is the the multi-category idea could be better served with
the KEYWORDS meta-command. If anything, we should support hierarchical
categories.
0 KEYWORDS specifies a comma-separated list of words which users might
relate to the part. Syntax:
0 KEYWORDS <word> (, <word) ...
- Keywords could denote the shape of the part (round, triangular), the
colors/treatments (chrome, decorated, transparent), obvious features
or uses (hinge, window, hull), related LEGO themes (Adventurers,
Divers, Technic), or any other terms which seem relevant.
- There may be multiple KEYWORDS commands in a single part-file. This
is necessary, since each statement should be only 80 characters.
- The part number, descriptive name, and category are all considered
part of the keywords specification.
- There is no order to the keywords.
- It's not clear if parts of a keyword should be considered a keyword.
> 2. Are there any rules or smart philosophies about what words I have to put
> into the line.
No rules, except what I've outlined above.
At some point, we might want to draw up a list of suggested keywords,
just to be consistent. We wouldn't want half the parts to reference the
keyword 'boat', and the other half to use 'ship'.
> 3. Does it matter in witch order the keywords are, or can I just put them in
> alphabetically.
See the answer above.
> The two parts I'm starting with, 2635 and 2641, are a good testcase, because
> both fit in multiple categories. Some of the (potential) words mentioned in
> relation to these parts were: Airport, Boat, Frame, Crane, Harbour, Leg,
> Train, Portal, Stadium, Stand, Support.
Hmm. You can never have too many keywords?
Steve
--
Getting more whiz-bang for the buck.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | [PARTS] - Header keyword line
|
| Hello all, I'm thinking of adding a keywords line to my (updated) part files, but I don't know much about the functionality of this feature. A look in the FAQ didn't help me either. Could someone answer these questions I have ? 1. What programs use (...) (26 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
