(Yesterday, 16:04)N. W. Perry Wrote: Part of the question is whether you intend to describe form or function, and I think few would argue that form is really what you're interested in: that is, the actual shape of a part, rather than how it's used, because the latter is endlessly variable.
The problem is that many of the proposed terms have intrinsic meanings of function. For example, an arch has a particular structural purpose, which is derived from and relative to its shape, but there are certainly parts that have arch-like shapes that are coincidental to their possible function as arches. Some of these might be currently classified as "bow" or "mudguard" or similar terms.
...
I love how you framed this comment/question, and you are right that I am much more concerned with Form than Function because LEGO builders are a very creative group, and I want to help people find the part that has the shape needed to solve problems in their project.
As for the example of an Arch, I would probably feel comfortable describing something as an arch if it has that shape, even if the studs weren't in the right configuration to create a strong arched structure. That said, I am currently describing curves on different axes using different words, even though builders can change the orientation using SNOT techniques.
There is an exception however, and that's Technic - within that section I try harder to organize parts by function because Technic really is a different building system with a different underlying grid and philosophy.
I will likely incorporate some clarification around form-first vs. function-first sorting and naming conventions into the narrative. This was very helpful, thank you.