Subject:
|
Re: Proposal: New Parts Category for round parts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:49:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
985 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jim Hughes wrote:
> The term "liftarm" is the official Lego US Consumer Affairs name. It is
> derived from the official Danish part name. The term has been used widely
> in Lego advertising, particularly in the names of supplemental or parts packs,
> particularly in the late 1980s or early 1990s
So, does anyone know what the Danish term is? Or the part names?
> Lego's solution to this problem is to simply name the new part whatever they
> wish. This is easy for Lego because they have absolutely no systematic approach
> to element names; a name can be a description of the shape or of the function,
> or of neither. And unlike LDraw's requirement for unique element names, Lego
> has no such requirement, they now have at least 5 different elements officially
> named "steering gear"
Nod, exactly. And, since we're working in English, with translations or
totally different names, it's possibly worse. By 'worse', I mean that I
expect that part names in secondary languages are scrutinized or
reviewed less than they are in the original language, since those
secondary language names probably are not set by the part designers.
> Another consideration is to classify and name all parts based on a single
> attribute no matter what. My personal opinion is to describe only
> shape/geometry (at least in theory, I have yet to put this into practice) since
> the function of a given element can vary dramatically depending on context. An
> example of this scheme is:
[snip example part taxonomy]
There are a couple of problems with this approach (IMO)...
It's relatively easy to classify the more regular parts by geometry.
But sooner or later, you get to a point where you need "miscellaneous"
groups, to avoid having a multitude of groups with very few parts.
The LDraw system is (currently) limited to a single level of categories.
So we can't establish an arbitrary number of taxonomic levels.
Current discussion has shown (IMO) that dealing with parts as having
several properties, with each property having a strength or affinity
measure, may be more practical than trying to derive a taxonomy.
But this is getting more into .brictionary territory, I think.
> In any event good luck with your classification. In all of the work on my
> site I have found parts classification to be one of the most conceptually
> difficult tasks, and I only deal with Technic elements. And thanks for your
> continued work on the partsref. I dont use LDraw but I find the Partsref
> indespensable
Hey, Partsref is a freebie corollary of the work on LDraw.org. :) So if
you like Partsref, be glad we've got LDraw going.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
56 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
