Improvement of the ODB

[Alexandre]

What about books where each model has both a CP and a diagram?

Well, it should be possible to add the model twice once as diagram from pages xx - yy and once as cp on page zz.
Problem with that is that using (model_id,book_id) as primary key won't work then anymore, so that there has to be an artificial primary key as (book_id, diagram_id) and model_id only as foreign key included. Alternatively (model_id, book_id, type) could be used as primary key.

To solve the problem we could use type : "CP"/"Diag"/"CP+Diag"
If somebody search for a diagram, it will look for the instance of models that are diag or cp+diag.

[wolf]

That's what the instance-type "CP" is for

Ok, I should have elaborated more. What I mean is this - when should a CP in a book be regarded as an 'official model'?

Again, using Origami Omnibus as an example. Which of the following CPs qualify for an entry in the database?

- Fushimi's cranes on p124-125
- Maekawa's gamecock (p90-something)
- Traditional crane on p88

None of the above are listed in the current entry for Origami Omnibus. Yet, Kasahara's CPs for the peacock and rhino are listed.

[Alexandre]

But why a CP should not be registered in the database ?
What is special about the CPs in this book?

[origami_8]

I think all cps should be listed in the database.
What is so special on the cps in "Origami Omnibus"? I don´t own this book. Are they any different to the ones lets say from "Origami Design Secrets"?

[wolf]

What is so special on the cps in "Origami Omnibus"?

None whatsoever. The book is an example of an current entry in the database which is either incomplete, or inconsistent in its model listings.

[Alexandre]

ahhh okay
That's not a problem. When the new ODB will be ready, the data of the old ODB will be processed, thanks to some scripts, to be included in the new ODB. Then it will be easy to correct the errors.

[Daydreamer]

Then it will be easy to correct the errors.

...if we have those 500 children you mentioned earlier to go through all the books and check the entries for mistakes...

That is to say, the completeness of entries will always depend on the users and it is the users who decide if they want to add a CP which is in a book or not, there's nothing we can do about this.

[wolf]

We're going to need more than 500 trained monkeys.

Another random thought that's probably somewhere in the database design document already - provide the capability for exclusion in searches. That way, if someone's looking for a non-traditional crane, he won't have to waste time ploughing through several pages of traditional crane listings.

[Alexandre]

The "tags" will solve this issue, the traditional models will got the tag "traditional". It will help to make some sort of groups of models.
I will implement in the search engine something to accept searchs like "crane -traditional" .

[Daydreamer]

Concerning traditional models: Would it be better to have an author named "Traditional" or "Unknown Author", or to allow models to have no author assigned?

[wolf]

I'd prefer 'Unknown' to leaving it blank (the latter could possibly be perceived as an error in the database).

[Alexandre]

*publisher
-name
-nationality

*authors
-first name
-last name
-pseudo
-nationality
-birth (month-year)
-death (month-year)
-personal website

*books
-list of author_identifier (the person(s) who made the book)
-publisher_identifier
-type (book/booklet/magazine/CDROM)
-ISBN/ISSN
-publishing date (month-year)
-quick summary
-comments


*models
-name
-list of author_identifier (the person(s) who created the model)
-picture
-paper format (square/$bill/etc..)
-number of pieces (1/2/modular/etc..)
-a list of tags, like "christmas","dinosaur","traditional","action"...
-complexity (simple/intermediate/complex)

*instances of a model
-book_identifier
-model_identifier
-language
-comments
-type (diagram/CP/diagram+CP)
-first page of the model in the book
-last page of the model in the book ??
-made with computer/written by hand/photodiagram ??

So here is the current state of the things.

[denori]

I'd prefer 'Unknown' to leaving it blank (the latter could possibly be perceived as an error in the database).

At the moment the ODB uses 'Traditional' only where a model is known to be a Traditional model. Where no indication is given I prefer to use 'Unknown'.

However, persuading people to enter names correctly or spell things correctly is tricky enough (i.e. impossible) without adding the intended use of 'Traditional' and 'Unknown'!

Whilst the outlined scheme is fairly close to an 'ideal' solution, I think that maintaining the integrity of the data in this scheme will require so much work from people adding data that they quite simply won't bother. There is some data in there that I think is unnecessary. I know someone whose job is designing usable, workable databases. He's also a folder! I'll ask his advice.

Also first name / last name is potentially confusing. That's why I use Family Name and Given Name. (But again, not everyone adding data reads instructions .... )

[Aurèle]

*models
-name
-list of author_identifier (the person(s) who created the model)
-picture
-paper format (square/$bill/etc..)
-number of pieces (1/2/modular/etc..)
-a list of tags, like "christmas","dinosaur","traditional","action"...
-complexity (simple/intermediate/complex)

cut/no cut ? it is for a lot of folders a condition to fold or not the model...

Looks like a good draft. I have a question, knowing all of the difficulty it provides: which transcription will be chosen for japanese, corean, chinese, russian and others language without occidental charset ? It is very difficult to find someone able to write in correct charset a title of a japanese book, but it would be a great value if, when searching some book of Yoshizawa or others in ODB, we could have the kanji title. It would be helpful when buying japanese books on the internet or in a japanese library.
Having together a translitated and original title is perhaps a good way ? some japanese ou japan-friendly users may enter original book titles when they have time, maybe...

[David]

1 What is the main "thing" we are recording in this database

2 Why do you not just have a single entity table that is authors/ creators and publishers?

3 Perhaps we need to stop thinking in terms of "books" and just need to have "collections" of models, this would cover websites and could also expand to include magazines within a subset (in the same table)

4 Using point 3, it could be expanded to say years for organisational booklets eg volume 2003- mag no 56 page no 23, and for websites
Joe Bloggs homepage- Main origami page- specific url

5 would not worry about "first" and "last" page of model- what use is that?
just have the page it appears on or the specific url.

6 complexity of a model or not is very subjective- Some models appear deceptivly simple- an example of this would be Michael La fosse, nothing too hard until you try to finish the model of to look good!
So I would not call many of his models complex- but to get them to look good, that is different- you can't quantify that

I am more than happy to play the devil's advocate in this process.