[Loadstone] Point type/class

Shawn Kirkpatrick shawn at odyssey.cm.nu
Wed Apr 11 02:57:53 BST 2007

I think a simpler type system would be better, at least on the phone. I 
think we'd want a two dementional system, type and subtype. Anything more 
would probably be too complicated to be useful.
Since I'll be the one having to program this for the phone I'm all for 
having it simple to implement. Since I'll also have to use the program I'd 
like something simple to use as well.
I think what'll happen is we'll try whatever we finally come up with on the 
point share site first. This makes it much easier to try different things 
since that system runs a real database. Once we get that system worked out 
then it'll be ported to the phone. This probably won't be for a while since 
this will require some major database modifications. If that has to happen 
then the database rewrite I'd like to do should also happen at that time. 
Basically all this means that people shouldn't expect type support in the 
next version or anything, this is a longer term goal.

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Rob Melchers wrote:

> Hi Teddy,
> Hmm, an interesting topic indeed and one that the last word has not been 
> spoken about yet. Still, semantics serve a purpose as long as they are 
> accessible and usable. I've designed the odd database in my time and see them 
> die, because users couldn't appreciate the complexity. Also your remark 
> 'simple to use or to implement' is valid. We're dealing with a phone that 
> doesn't support the kind of database flexibility we should want, so like is 
> the case in electronics, psychology and philosophy, we shall have to find a 
> compromise. Having said thhat, if the need arises to create more dimensions 
> it's never too late. For the moment we want users to be able to download 
> POI's that adhere to a simple class description. If you're going on a journey 
> you will want to get the 'transportation' POI's, put them in a seperate 
> database and have them ready for use when you need them. If all you need are 
> railway stations, the type description will suffice to make a database of 
> stations. The same goes forr 'food', entertainment' and 'worship'. Like I 
> stated, the list of classes is not yet what it should be right now. This is a 
> first attempt to come to some kind of classification, lets see where a simple 
> system takes us and then decide if augmentation is called for.
> Rob
> At 4/10/2007, you wrote:
>> Hi Rob and all,
>> >
>> ist. I also propose not to have sub-classes, although they sometimes come 
>> to mind. Let's keep it as simple as possible.
>> Do You mean simple to implement or to use?
>> Follow this:
>> A street is somehow the same as a flowing water. But still a highway is 
>> diferent to a hiking path. So Flowing water and Street would be a Class in 
>> Your modell.
>> A Restaurant and a supermarket have much in common, when I'm hungry. They 
>> should have a class like Food.
>> so Streets, flowing Waterways and Food are thre classes.
>> That makes no sence to me.
>> MUCH AND IN OTHER SITUATIONS TO LES: But a model with only two levels comes 
>> to its end before it has started.
>> Dont let us make the same mistakes as the professionals already made.
>> Regards
>> Teddy
>> _______________________________________________
>> Loadstone mailing list
>> Loadstone at loadstone-gps.com
>> http://www.loadstone-gps.com/mailman/listinfo/loadstone

More information about the Loadstone mailing list