Lots of good thoughts here; I agree with many and would quibble with perhaps only a few…
Essentially true, but to be more clear (since I don't feel I was terribly articulate in what I wrote before), I don't think you can successfully devise a scheme that describes only form (unless it is meant to be totally non-human readable). I seemed to suggest avoiding terms that denote function, but this isn't really my view, as the form of LEGO parts is so inextricable linked with their function—despite, and maybe even because of, the fact that the brilliance of LEGO lies in the possibility of using parts in ways that exploit their form while belying their nominal function. Much of the art behind this medium stems from the chance to, say, make an escutcheon out of an automobile grille—yet to still recognize the grille as such that you wouldn't name it as anything else.
Anyway…
This I'd disagree with, for the reasons above. An arch is an immediately-recognized form, derived from an utterly integral function. There is a wide assortment of available parts that easily and unambiguously fit this category, and notwithstanding the structural purpose of an arch, it is also an indisputably appropriate descriptor of the shape as well.
This I agree with. Indeed, many space windscreens, if made opaque, are now just wedge or nosecones or panel-thickness slopes. There may be a category for things like cockpit canopies, but generally speaking the term "windscreen" says too much about function and not enough about form.
This is fair; a handle could easily be a subset of bar. (There may also be handles that aren't closed on both ends.)
Yes, some frames fit both a door and a window of the same size.
My definition for this is based on function (again, not totally unavoidable): A "tile" is a type of "plate" that has had studs subtracted from some or all of the area where they'd typically appear, in order to provide a smooth or non-clutching surface. So the piece described above is a tile in my book. (But I do limit this definition to the removal of 50% or more of the studs, simply because it "feels right". So a 2x2 plate with one stud missing would not be a tile.)
Note also that a 1x2 plate with one stud (the familiar "jumper") is not a tile in my book, because the reduction in studs isn't so much to provide a smooth area, but to offset the building grid by a half-stud factor. So in this case, a 2x2 with only one stud in the center is still not a tile to me, because its function as an offset overrides that of its smoothness. (Then again, a round 2x2 with a center stud might be a tile…)
Yeah, I'm not crazy about this as a category, nor as a term of art in general for LEGO when being dealt with in any scholarly fashion. Though it's gained widespread use (even within official TLG literature), it's just "gross" enough that it seems like it should remain in the informal canon of AFOL terminology.
I think it's possible to find the right definition for wedge, but I wonder if it couldn't be dispensed with altogether. Are all wedges also describable as slopes?
Agree with the theory of this (parts that serve as direction-changers for the studded surface). But if including bricks, "bracket" is no longer ideal as it suggests a form that doesn't match these bricks at all. And this is a case where function is a better categorizing aspect than form.
I think a plate is only ⅓ of a brick. The ⅔ part is a brick (since bricks can be multiple bricks high, why not a fraction of a brick?—you could also find the need to describe a ½ height brick). Honestly, this part feels like a cheat and I wish we didn't have to categorize it at all!
A pane can also be an open void within a window or door piece, which may or may not be fillable by a "glass" or other insert.
Need to be careful with right and left, esp. with wings and even doors that may not have an unambiguous orientation.
(2025-05-08, 22:17)Peter Blomberg Wrote: What you describe is a _part classification system_ based on _tags_.
You have decided to emphasize _form_ over _function_.
Essentially true, but to be more clear (since I don't feel I was terribly articulate in what I wrote before), I don't think you can successfully devise a scheme that describes only form (unless it is meant to be totally non-human readable). I seemed to suggest avoiding terms that denote function, but this isn't really my view, as the form of LEGO parts is so inextricable linked with their function—despite, and maybe even because of, the fact that the brilliance of LEGO lies in the possibility of using parts in ways that exploit their form while belying their nominal function. Much of the art behind this medium stems from the chance to, say, make an escutcheon out of an automobile grille—yet to still recognize the grille as such that you wouldn't name it as anything else.
Anyway…
Quote:Remove 'arch' because every arch is an inverted slope used for a particular structural function.
This I'd disagree with, for the reasons above. An arch is an immediately-recognized form, derived from an utterly integral function. There is a wide assortment of available parts that easily and unambiguously fit this category, and notwithstanding the structural purpose of an arch, it is also an indisputably appropriate descriptor of the shape as well.
Quote:Remove 'windscreen' because every windscreen is a wedge or a panel used for a particular function.
This I agree with. Indeed, many space windscreens, if made opaque, are now just wedge or nosecones or panel-thickness slopes. There may be a category for things like cockpit canopies, but generally speaking the term "windscreen" says too much about function and not enough about form.
Quote:Remove 'handle' because it describes a particular function of a 'bar'. The grabbing function is already included in the definition of 'bar'.
This is fair; a handle could easily be a subset of bar. (There may also be handles that aren't closed on both ends.)
Quote:Merge (door) frame with (window) frame and remove the explicit reference to an insert.
Yes, some frames fit both a door and a window of the same size.
Quote:You'll have to resolve the following ambiguities:
Is a 2M x 2M x 1p piece having two studs on top a 'tile' with two studs on top or a 'plate' without two studs?
My definition for this is based on function (again, not totally unavoidable): A "tile" is a type of "plate" that has had studs subtracted from some or all of the area where they'd typically appear, in order to provide a smooth or non-clutching surface. So the piece described above is a tile in my book. (But I do limit this definition to the removal of 50% or more of the studs, simply because it "feels right". So a 2x2 plate with one stud missing would not be a tile.)
Note also that a 1x2 plate with one stud (the familiar "jumper") is not a tile in my book, because the reduction in studs isn't so much to provide a smooth area, but to offset the building grid by a half-stud factor. So in this case, a 2x2 with only one stud in the center is still not a tile to me, because its function as an offset overrides that of its smoothness. (Then again, a round 2x2 with a center stud might be a tile…)
Quote:SNOT is a building technique that uses parts having studs in perpendicular and/or opposite arrangement. You may consider these key pieces to be plate brackets and solid/brick brackets.
Yeah, I'm not crazy about this as a category, nor as a term of art in general for LEGO when being dealt with in any scholarly fashion. Though it's gained widespread use (even within official TLG literature), it's just "gross" enough that it seems like it should remain in the informal canon of AFOL terminology.
Quote:Your 'wedge' definition needs improving to distinguish it from pieces with corner cutouts.
Corner slope or corner wedge?
I think it's possible to find the right definition for wedge, but I wonder if it couldn't be dispensed with altogether. Are all wedges also describable as slopes?
Quote:piece - Bracket - Piece having studs in perpendicular and/or opposite orientation - Plate, Brick, Inverted
Agree with the theory of this (parts that serve as direction-changers for the studded surface). But if including bricks, "bracket" is no longer ideal as it suggests a form that doesn't match these bricks at all. And this is a case where function is a better categorizing aspect than form.
Quote:piece - Plate - Part which is 1 or 2 thirds of the height of a LEGO Brick - Rounded, Round, Curved
I think a plate is only ⅓ of a brick. The ⅔ part is a brick (since bricks can be multiple bricks high, why not a fraction of a brick?—you could also find the need to describe a ½ height brick). Honestly, this part feels like a cheat and I wish we didn't have to categorize it at all!
Quote:piece - Pane - Part which inserts into a Frame, including transparent parts and lattice/grille structures - Curved
A pane can also be an open void within a window or door piece, which may or may not be fillable by a "glass" or other insert.
Quote:subtype or location - Right - Right-handed version, right side of part, or part to be placed on the right side of some superstructure -
subtype or location - Left - Left-handed version, left side of part, or part to be placed on the left side of some superstructure -
Need to be careful with right and left, esp. with wings and even doors that may not have an unambiguous orientation.