| |
John VanZwieten wrote:
>
> Sybrand Bonsma <bonsma@phys.chem.ethz.ch> wrote in message
> news:FEG10M.DFB@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.admin.database, Selçuk Göre writes:
> > > Actually subject line says all. How about making a move about it? Many
> > > efforts ongoing around the community requires this. The first examples that
> > > come to mind are piece auctions, set inventory database and Lego CAD
> > > studies. We have already several half-agreed standards, like Ldraw lib and
> > > Auczilla names, but isn't there a real and (starting to be) urgent need for
> > > a universal naming convention?
> > >
> > > What 's your opinions?
> >
> > I think this is a good idea. If such database is hosted on Lugnet, or a • clear
> > link to another place everybody can use the same names when they want to
> > auction/buy/sell/trade pieces. If there are pictures shown of the pieces it
> > would even be better.
> > I know there is a database of the pieces in LDraw together with pictures, • maybe
> > this could be used for this purpose also.
> >
> > Personal opinions: start with comparing the nomenclature that is used in • LDraw,
> > Auczilla and the set inventories here on LUGNET. When pieces are named
> > identical in all three systems this should be adapted, otherwise there • should
> > be a voting.
>
>
> The problem is that there are different needs for different applications using
> piece names. LDraw piece categories and sorting are based on the name, which
> is why we have some rather tortured names--which wouldn't serve very well for
> auctions, etc.
>
> At the same time, if there were voting on standard names, and LDraw names
> lost, does that mean LDraw names would be changed? The result to our
> categories and sorting could be very bad.
>
> Perhaps, though, separate LDraw and auction names could be chosen which are
> obvious derivatives of each other.
My feeling is that it would be good to have a standard set of names for
auctions and inventories. It would be nice if LDraw could use these
names also, but sounds like there is good reason for it to use a
different set of names. Two sets of names aren't too bad since a
cross-reference could easily be built. Perhaps LDraw could also
eventually be set up to accept names from either set.
We definitely need a standard. I have avoided bidding on several parts
because the name doesn't key to something I can visualize, and there
isn't an attached picture.
What I would like to see for a pictorial reference would have two types
of pictures. One would be pictures of groups of similar parts (and a
part might appear in more than one picture). The other would be a
catalog sorted both by standard name, and function (in this 2nd listing,
again, a part might show up more than once). Pictures should probably be
links, or the catalog should be broken into small pages (one of the
pictorial catalogs out there causes problems with my browsers, probably
because of all the memory used, it also takes forever to load).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
80 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
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
