Subject:
|
Re: Online LEGO Inventory Database
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.db.brictionary
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:20:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8588 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.db.brictionary, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.db.brictionary, Steve Hodge wrote:
> > > The core element table should have an abstract key value, and a pointer to a
> > > graphic image for each part. A second table, call it Descriptions, would • have
> > > the various descriptions for the part and the key back to the core element
> > > table.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> Oh, and each description should probably be tagged with a source. That way,
> when we change the description of some part in LDraw, the cross-reference
> database can be updated.
I'd thought about this earlier, but forgot to mention it.
> > > > Some sort of searching (or at least heirarchical arrangement) of parts • based
> > > > on attributes/description of the part would also be necessary (it's not
> > > > pleasant to have to wade through huge numbers of pictures looking for the • part
> > > > you want). There's another thread about just this.
> > >
> > > Pictures are going to be the ultimate ID method for parts. Having a small
> > > number of categories or types would allow easier access to the pictures. • Once
> > a
> > > number of descriptions are collected, a text search function is possible.
> > >
> > > Look at <http://www.lugnet.com/cad/ldraw/parts/ref/> for ideas on organizing • and
> > > searching. Some stuff there works well, some doesn't.
> >
> > That's the problem with just having categories of pictures. For some pieces
> > it's difficult to decide on which category it should be in.
>
> Yep. A better approach may be modeling a set of properties. So a plate with
> holes in it could have both the Technic and Plate properties. This would • avoid
> requiring a hierarchical classification (is that redundant?) system.
Yeah, I agree. One of the other threads had come to the same conclusion and
are curently trying to decide exactly which properties would be necessary.
> This is probably better described by some fuzzy-logic concepts of which I know
> little.
Likewise.
Regards,
Steve Hodge
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Online LEGO Inventory Database
|
| (...) Having a good list of properties at the start is a good idea, but don't hard-code specific properties into the schema. It's just a many-to-many relation between parts and properties. Assuming a relational approach. Steve (27 years ago, 10-Feb-00, to lugnet.db.brictionary)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Online LEGO Inventory Database
|
| (...) Yep. (...) Oh, and each description should probably be tagged with a source. That way, when we change the description of some part in LDraw, the cross-reference database can be updated. (...) Yep. A better approach may be modeling a set of (...) (27 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.db.brictionary)
|
9 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
|
|
|
|
