Subject:
|
Re: wishing upon a star
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.db.brictionary
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:37:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1772 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi guys,
I would urge caution on the creation of complex codes to identify
pieces. I admit, I am prejudiced. I worked on a database management
project back in the early 80s for a water-quality study in which water
samples were identified with a number. Fine, but by the time the
engineers had finished discussing it, the "sample number" had swollen
to 18 digits, each digit laden with significance. It was awful. Even
the use of barcodes couldn't reduce the interpretation and transcription
errors that followed.
Personally, I think a simple number to use as a key into the database
would be adequate. It could have some simple significance -- bigger
numbers mean newer parts, for example. The LEGO part numbers
supplimented by LDRAW numbers seem to be an excellent start.
Remember the KISS principle.
as evah,
John C.
In lugnet.db.brictionary, Adam Howard writes:
> Hi Dave & Robert,
>
> Robert Munafo <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:FGzv17.4G8@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.db.inv, Dave Lovelace writes:
> > > My approach, so far, was brainstormed as follows:
> > >
> > > A seven-digit alpha-numeric number, with the digits each symbolizing
> > > attributes of each part in question. Example: B1100Bl is a brick (B),
> > > 1x1 (11; if it was an 8x16 this number would be 8G, G equalling 16,
> > > and anything larger than [...]
> >
> > I like this system, but just want to comment that it's not a complete
> > substitute for the part numbers that LEGO molds on the bottom of the • bricks.
> >
> > Another issue is that there are an awful lot of parts that don't fall into • the
> > category of "modified bricks" at all. A lot of ambiguity would result as
> > different people try to guess what size "brick" is represented by, say, • one of
> > those weird Throwbots pieces.
> >
> > - Robert Munafo http://www.mrob.com/
> > LEGO: TC+++(8480) SW++ #+ S-- LS++ Hsp M+ A@ LM++ YB64m IC13
>
> I like this idea. I think we could use the rest of the digits to identify
> the piece more accurately. We just need to decide on a scheme. Also,
> should we limit the length to 8 digits or could it be longer?
>
> Adam
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: wishing upon a star
|
| Yes, indeed, John is (as evah) right. Let me weigh in here as well... Putting meaning in keys is a sign of not very well seasoned designers, IMHO. A pretty strong principle of database design is NOT to let your key have business meaning. Get keys (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.db.brictionary)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: wishing upon a star
|
| Hi Dave & Robert, Robert Munafo <munafo@gcctechNO.SPAMcom> wrote in message news:FGzv17.4G8@lugnet.com... (...) bricks. (...) the (...) one of (...) I like this idea. I think we could use the rest of the digits to identify the piece more accurately. (...) (25 years ago, 25-Aug-99, to lugnet.db.brictionary)
|
22 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
|
|
|
|
