Subject:
|
Re: What words describe the Lego elements?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.db.brictionary
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Feb 2000 20:00:07 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera./Spamcake/com
|
Viewed:
|
3463 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Poindexter wrote:
>
> After thinking about this a lot, I think we need a nomenclature that is
> similar to the binomial nomenclature that they use for animals.
Respectfully disagree. Animals are all related (1), and the
nomenclature, driven by the Linnaeus classification system, reflects
that relationship. Lego elements, except in limited cases, are not
related to each other by derivation or evolution. Instead they share
aspects or attributes.
> These could
> be coupled to a standard name, such as lupus wilus, aka Wiley Coyote. The
> technical name would allow people to go down a tree of options that break
> the monstrous element list into manageable chunks. This would also allow
> people to do a search for "macaroni" and find the item in question. Also,
> similar pieces would be close on the "family tree" of elements. This would
> be based on function of the piece. Multi-function pieces become the problem
> here.
Indeed. And most pieces are multi function. The hardest thing about
using the LDraw family of tools is grokking where to find the parts.
> Of course, there are some slight problems, such as technic wheels. Do they
> go under wheels or under technic?
And this is a perfect example of why a tree isn't the right approach. A
technic wheel has the technic nature and it has the wheel nature. Any
database that holds it must take that into account. Todd has
pontificated on this at length before, including introducing the notion
of fuzzy relationships and percentage weighted links to capture this. It
might be good to review some of that thinking before embarking on a big
development project, as I think a hierarchichal DB or even a relational
DB might be poor implementation choices unless the metadata was very
carefully thought out.
Sorry for pontificating as well but you pushed a hot button.
1 - or if you are a creationist, they classify successfully AS IF they
were related, whether they actually are or not can be considered by you
to be an open question without distracting from the success of A
Linnaeus's(2) work at organising fauna and flora.
2 - no doubt I incorrectly spelled the poor man's name...
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What words describe the Lego elements?
|
| After thinking about this a lot, I think we need a nomenclature that is similar to the binomial nomenclature that they use for animals. These could be coupled to a standard name, such as lupus wilus, aka Wiley Coyote. The technical name would allow (...) (24 years ago, 4-Feb-00, to lugnet.db.brictionary)
|
11 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
|
|
|
|
