Subject:
|
Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:43:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
816 times
|
| |
|
|
On the L-CAD mailing list, Geoffrey Hyde wrote:
> Todd Lehmann wrote:
> > Related: What is an element and what is a set? I guess they're two
> > extremes of a whole spectrum, right? There are sub-assemblies which are
> > neither just-plain-elements nor full-sets. I don't know where those would
> > go in this paradigm.
>
> Umm - I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw here. To me an
> element is a piece of LEGO which may have one or more parts to it's whole,
> and is the minimum requirement to make it a brick, connector element, or
> decoration/utility part. A set, on the other hand, is a collection of LEGO
> elements (as described above) that are sold as a set by LEGO (NOTE: I
> include spare parts packs here, even though they come without instructions.)
> to the general public, in order for consumers to purchase them and make the
> models contained therein, and to add part or all of another set to create
> their own models from one or more sets. That's getting a bit deep into LEGO
> itself, but hey, I'm a LEGO fan! :)
>
> Of course, you cannot possibly have any claim to a LEGO element in a set or
> a set of LEGO itself and call it something you made (the instructions to)
> yourself - only TLG own the rights to elements and sets that they created -
> so you're not trying to distinguish them that way, although that is one
> possible distinction between LEGO elements and LEGO sets. ;-) Or is that
> the distinction you meant?
Ok, lemme try again from a different angle... The distiction I meant was
that a distinction is hard to make. That is, if there were an area for
"sets" and an area for "elements," it's hard to draw the line (in a few
special cases, but not in all cases of course) between the two.
But assuming a clear line could be drawn, where would sub-assemblies go?
Do sub-assemblies lean toward the "elements" end of the spectrum or toward
the "sets" end of the spectrum? Or do they fill all parts of spectrum?
Some sub-assemblies are complex enough to be almost "set-like" in nature
(for example, sub-models of larger models, if you count those as sub-
assemblies). Others are simple enough to be almost "element-like" in
nature (for example, a brick hinge composed of two actual half-hinge
elements, or an old 70's conveyor belt ramp thingie which consisted of
something like 6 separate actual elements).
In other words, in the final analysis, I wasn't trying to draw a distinction
at all. :) Just pointing out that it's so blurry, maybe it doesn't make
sense to have a distinction (with respect to TLG-subgroups of .cad.dat).
Or maybe it does...but it's not cut & dry.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Proposal for Revised Memorial
|
| (...) You're not going to beguile me with your fuzzy-logic thinking here, mister! ;) If you crank the zoom up high enough, every line is blurry. In this case, my feeling is the line is pretty clear. It's almost always obvious whether an assembly of (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
