Subject:
|
Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:59:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
385 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Robert M. Rodinsky wrote:
> I would like to object on the strongest terms possible the "Modified part
> description" of the part 2916.dat. This is in keeping with my beliefs on how
> parts should be named. Please refer to:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1605
>
> and
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1608
>
> This is not necessarily a train part.
True, but I feel this part might fall under Larry's "terribly unwieldy"
escape clause. Even if he doesn't think so.
> Is this file not my intellectual property?
It's arguable at this point, but the long-term general idea is that you
can do whatever you want with your original file, but other people may
modify the copy of the file that is distributed in the ldraw.org part
library.
> Shouldn't I have some control of its contents?
Politically, I'd say yes.
Practically speaking, it's not always practical to follow the guideline
of "the author has (some) control over his file". But that's more
general, not relevant to this case.
In this case, if you assert that the part should be named X, and the
admins assert that it should be named Y, and push came to shove, then
the admins are likely to prevail.
Anyway... I'm not convinced that
Wedge Brick 4 x 6 x 2 & 2/3
is a better (ie, more useful) name than
Train Front Wedge 4 x 6 x 2 & 2/3
But there seems to be a number of people opposed to the placement of
this part in Train. Do Larry and Jacob agree this part should be in
Wedge? Anyone else?
At <http://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?s=2916>, user lar
mentions:
> I'd rather see the other part renamed to remove Train (but that's just
> me) rather than this one changed to add it
2917 (the 'other part') is problematic. Taxonomically
(taxonometrically?) I can't see how 2916 and 2917 can be categorized
together. 2917 is not particularly a wedge. It is very much a panel,
but probably more, it's a windscreen. 2916 is definitely *not* a
windscreen.
I'd like 2917 and 2916 to be categorized together, since they are often
used together. But I can guess it's not going to happen.
Steve
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
| (...) I would argue that 2917 probably belongs in windscreen or window, I guess? In an ideal world there would be a way to associate a part with its "partner" as it were without using naming, there just would be a link between them somehow. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
| (...) It might. (...) I can see your point. And I must admit that the first category I would search for this part under would be "Train". - Which certainly implies that "train" at least should be a keyword for the part. (...) Sort of. In principle (...) (22 years ago, 24-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Renaming of 2916.dat
|
| I would like to object on the strongest terms possible the "Modified part description" of the part 2916.dat. This is in keeping with my beliefs on how parts should be named. Please refer to: (URL) is not necessarily a train part. Is this file not my (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
15 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
|
|
|
|
