Subject:
|
Re: Bricktionary
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.db.brictionary
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Aug 1999 17:06:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2507 times
|
| |
|
|
On 31 Jul 1999, in lugnet.admin.database, Ice <icestorm@inwave.com> wrote:
> Steve Bliss wrote:
> >
> > [Followup-To set to lugnet.admin.database -- can we please corral this
> > (important) discussion to one location? It's getting cross-posted to too
> > many ng's]
Shows me what happens with stale followup-to's...
> > On Thu, 8 Jul 1999 12:36:17 GMT, "Sybrand Bonsma"
> > <bonsma@phys.chem.ethz.ch> wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Compare the names of the different databases. A start here might be to find
> > > the counterparts of LDraw parts in other programms/auctions. Because LDraw
> > > uses part numbers, the list of pieces can be split up among various people
> > > easily.
> >
> > I've got some LDraw-to-AucZILLA cross-reference information. Let me dig it
> > out...
> >
> > > 4. Make an overview list of the used names. A proposed format is:
> > > LDraw number; LDraw name; Auczilla name; TV inventory name; other name(s)
> > > This owuld already be a good start for the Bricktionary.
> >
> > Why not format the list like this (each part would have several entries):
> >
> > ID - This is a unique ID for the part. It might be internally-created
> > for the project, or it might be the LDraw Number/actual part
> > number).
> > Number - The number or code for the part
> > Size - The size information for the part
> > Name - A name used to refer to the part
> > UsedBy - Where that name has been used. This field would be set to LDraw,
> > AucZILLA, Tim V, Margo K, maybe even Bricktionary (when a
> > 'preferred name' is decided upon).
> >
> > snip...
>
> How about a "known alias" category as well? Maybe include a warning category
> for the the piece has been mistaken for? The effort doesn't have to be
> strictly technical.
Interesting ideas. Could be useful, especially for parts with no simple
description.
> I've submitted a couple sets to the database, and I've been at a loss over
> the "correct" nomenclature for many pieces. This would be a great and very
> ambitious project. Defining what fields may be the first of many step we
> need to agree upon before we end up with a system.
>
> Apologies if this has been decided. I let this group go unwatched for a
> while and have quite a bit of reasing to go through here.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Bricktionary
|
| (...) How about a "known alias" category as well? Maybe include a warning category for the the piece has been mistaken for? The effort doesn't have to be strictly technical. I've submitted a couple sets to the database, and I've been at a loss over (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
80 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
