OMR specs

[Willy Tschager]

Please read:

http://forums.ldraw.org/showthread.php?t...47#pid6047

and comment.

w.

[Willy Tschager]

One other issue with the spec.

Currently we use the "name" of the set to separate it if there are two sets with the same number.
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6901
6901 - Mobile Lab.mpd
6901 - Space Plane.mpd

If we are inside the MPD we use then the qualifier number to separete the submodels from the different sets.
6901-1 Hatch.ldr
6901-2 Minifig.ldr

So if I have separated the submodel from one of the MPD files I have no chance to see to which set it really belongs. In my eyes this is really a bad solution.

If we use also the <qualifier> for the MPD name it would be clear.

I do not think that there will be much extraction/reassembling of subfiles in the same model. The only reason I can think of extracting a submodel would be the reuse of a subfile like the minifigs in another MPD, but in this case it would be renamed anyway. On the other side there is just one model out in the wild via the AIOI which would be affected, so a change would not do much harm - given that the <optional qualifier> in:

<Set Number>-<optional qualifier> - <Set Name>[ - <Sub Model Name>]

isn't mandatory for all other sets and is only "added if there is more than one set that could be assigned <Set Number>."

w.

[Willy Tschager]

Currently I am working on an app that uses much the OMR Spec.

So I need to fully understand it.

I have a problem with the following content:

Code:

Each individual model file in the MPD that represents an unofficial part must use the standard header format of unofficial parts on the parts tracker. Its 0 FILE entry will reflect the modified MPD version of the part's filename, but the rest of the header will reflect the original filename.

So far i remember is the 0 FILE entry the in the MPD file the file name for the code that follows until next 0 FILE entry or...

In the above it is stated that the 0 FILE entry contains the modified file name and the rest should be like the original DAT-file. If I strictly follow that I would have a 0 FILE entry that is different from the 0 Name entry.

According to the MPD Spec those both entries should be the same!

I am currently confused !

Please help me.

To be honest I cannot see the problem. Since we change the filename to:

<Set Number>[-<Optional Qualifier>] - <Unofficial Part Number>.dat

there has to be set an exceptional rule for the rest of the header. You cannot for example change the <Author Name>
or the <Individual filename>. Find below the unofficial part I included in the Green Grocer. I think it represents a valid example:

0 FILE 10185 - 60616.dat
0 Glass for Door 1 x 4 x 6
0 Name: 10185 - 60616.dat
0 Author: Santeri Piippo [arezey]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

0 !HELP To place the glass on 30179.dat, have it -32LDU on the X-axis
0 !HELP relative to the door to place it correctly.

w.

[Roland Melkert]

I like to think of mpd's like zips etc, so when you need to extract the contents you do so to a subfolder.

This way you always know what's what and you will not break search order and (imho) most important you can keep the subfile names short and minimize prefix redundancy.

[Roland Melkert]

I agree the OMR spec only overrides the filename part of the lib spec, so the name tag is still based on the original filename.

[Willy Tschager]

I propose the following change:

Each model in the OMR will consist of several files that are packaged together into a single MPD file. For sets that include instructions for multiple models, each model will have its own MPD file. Each MPD for the set will be named in the following manner:

<Set Number> - <Set Name>[ - <Sub Model Name>]

Where:
<Set Number>: The number assigned on the container of the set.
<Set Name>: The name of the set printed on the container in English.
<Sub Model Name>: This is Optional in most cases. This is required for alternate models that are detailed in instructions (e.g. the Creator theme). In this case the naming is left to the discretion of the author but should be descriptive of the model contained in the MPD.

to (additions in italics)

Each model in the OMR will consist of several files that are packaged together into a single MPD file. For sets that include instructions for multiple models, each model will have its own MPD file. Each MPD for the set will be named in the following manner:

<Set Number>[-<Optional Qualifier>] - <Set Name>[ - <Sub Model Name>]

Where:
<Set Number>: The number assigned on the container of the set.
<Optional Qualifier>: Is a sequential number, starting with 1.
<Set Name>: The name of the set printed on the container in English.
<Sub Model Name>: This is Optional in most cases. This is required for alternate models that are detailed in instructions (e.g. the Creator theme). In this case the naming is left to the discretion of the author but should be descriptive of the model contained in the MPD.

The <Optional Qualifier> is not mandatory and gets added only if there is more than one set that could be assigned the same <Set Number>. Numbering should start with the oldest set and some investigation should be done in existing set databases.

Example:
6901-1 - Mobile Lab.mpd (Produced in 1980)
6901-2 - Space Plane.mpd (Produced in 1998)

[Roland Melkert]

I'm basically ok with this. Only nit pick I can think of is what if a set number hasn't been reused but might be later. Will the old one have to be renamed or do you draw the second one starting with '-2' ?

What are the other members thoughts on this (whole) issue?

[Travis Cobbs]

I tend to agree; perhaps -1 should be disallowed as the qualifier. The first set using a given number would be understood to never contain the qualifier.

[Willy Tschager]

I buy that. Feel free to sand my wording.

<Optional Qualifier>: Is a sequential number, starting with 2.

The <Optional Qualifier> is not mandatory and gets added only if there is more than one set that could be assigned the same <Set Number>. The first set using a given number would be understood to never contain the qualifier however numbering should start with the oldest set and some investigation should be done in existing set databases.

w.