Labels?

[Rorthron]

Yes, I'm considering to rename "entries" too.

Each entry could be:

• A software tape (that could contain an individual program, a compilation, a covertape, or an electronic magazine)
• Each individual program from a compilation, covertape, or type-in (even if this program was never released on tape separately)
• A box set containing a collection of tapes sold together
• A book
• A computer, printer, interface, or any other type of add-on hardware device

Is this the full list of the contents of "entries"? Are there any other things included?

It doesn't include ... cross-development tools (for instance ZX-Paintbrush).

Could you explain the reasoning behind the exclusion? (It helps define what you are looking for.)

[Einar Saukas]

Yes, I'm considering to rename "entries" too.

Each entry could be:

• A software tape (that could contain an individual program, a compilation, a covertape, or an electronic magazine)
• Each individual program from a compilation, covertape, or type-in (even if this program was never released on tape separately)
• A box set containing a collection of tapes sold together
• A book
• A computer, printer, interface, or any other type of add-on hardware device

Is this the full list of the contents of "entries"? Are there any other things included?

Yes, this is the full list.

It's basically all "titles", which means software (like Target Renegade), hardware (like Multiface 1), and books (like Complete Spectrum ROM Disassembly).

It doesn't include ... cross-development tools (for instance ZX-Paintbrush).

Could you explain the reasoning behind the exclusion? (It helps define what you are looking for.)

This list doesn't include cross-development tools like utilities (such as ZX-Paintbrush) and emulators (such as SpecEmu) because they are not really Spectrum software. Instead they are software for other platforms that help create Spectrum software. Therefore it makes sense to store and classify them differently. For instance, instead of Spectrum characteristics like "runs on Spectrum 48K or Spectrum 128K", they are classified as "runs on Amiga or PC". Technically there's a separate table called "tools" for these cross-development tools.

This list doesn't include magazines either because they are different from other Spectrum titles. Basically a magazine title like Crash is not really a product, the actual products are the individual magazine issues of Crash. Magazines require a very different organization and presentation, thus it makes sense to store them differently.

[Rorthron]

I can't right now think of anything better than "products", though even that is not entirely accurate. A more accurate description might be "non-recurring products for use with the ZX Spectrum", but that's really quite a mouthful.

[druellan]

I think "entry" is correct in the context of the database, it is accurate on what represents for the database itself and I didn't remember any confusion while taking about contents in the forum. I see no problems if we keep it.

[Einar Saukas]

I think "entry" is correct in the context of the database, it is accurate on what represents for the database itself and I didn't remember any confusion while taking about contents in the forum. I see no problems if we keep it.

I don't see much problem with "entry". Unlike "label" which is misleading thus needs to be changed.

It seems replacing "label" with "entity" is the best choice we have. However the problem is, the two central terms in ZXDB would be "entity" and "entry". These words are too similar!

Imagine yourself trying to explain to someone else that certain entries were authored by multiple entities, either directly or through other entities owned by them, these entries were possibly licensed from other entities or just inspired by other entries from different entities, or perhaps as sequels to previous entries authored by the same or different entities...

We really need distinct words. In particular, I think "entity/product" works better than "entity/entry" and especially "label/entry".

Any other ideas?

[pavero]

As a programmer of many tools using ZXDB my opinion is negative for these changes. I would never change names of the most important tables, even if there are misleading. That's why we have clear descriptions on GitHub like this:

"labels - individuals and companies (authors, publishers, development teams, copyright holders)"

It's very easy to rename table in ZXDB. But it means to modify dozens/ hunderds SQL queries in applications running on ZXDB!

At least please don't change the name of the most important table - entries!

[R-Tape]

I'd second what pav says. I think this makes unnecessary work for people working on the DB and sites/software using it. If little tweaks keep getting made without very good reason, I think we run the risk of discouraging people.

In my opinon, 'labels' is not perfect but okay.

At least please don't change the name of the most important table - entries!

^This!

[Einar Saukas]

As a programmer of many tools using ZXDB my opinion is negative for these changes. I would never change names of the most important tables, even if there are misleading. That's why we have clear descriptions on GitHub like this:

"labels - individuals and companies (authors, publishers, development teams, copyright holders)"

It's very easy to rename table in ZXDB. But it means to modify dozens/ hunderds SQL queries in applications running on ZXDB!

At least please don't change the name of the most important table - entries!

For the record, I never underestimate everyone else's effort to accommodate any chances in ZXDB. This is the reason I announce and discuss changes in advance, and always make these changes gradually. For instance, when "idiom_id" was renamed to "language_id", there was an intermediate ZXDB release containing both, so nobody had to update all queries at once. This gradual process is actually more work for me, but makes it easier for others...

In this particular case, I didn't expect this would be much of a problem. I assume it would just require a few automatic search/replaces:

Code: Select all

labels    ->  entities
label_id  ->  entity_id
entries   ->  products
entry_id  ->  product_id

However if it's harder for others than I estimated, then I won't make this change anymore. This is exactly the reason I asked for feedback!

[pavero]

Discussion is always welcome. But the main question should be different. Not 'how to rename?' but 'is it really necessary to rename?'. Or maybe a poll would be ideal.

Frankly speaking, if I see a table 'entities' instead of a table 'labels' - it doesn't help me too much. Still I need to read a description or search the content firstly.

[Einar Saukas]

Discussion is always welcome. But the main question should be different. Not 'how to rename?' but 'is it really necessary to rename?'. Or maybe a poll would be ideal.

Frankly speaking, if I see a table 'entities' instead of a table 'labels' - it doesn't help me too much. Still I need to read a description or search the content firstly.

Good nomenclature doesn't eliminate the need for good documentation, or vice-versa. Ideally we should have both.

I believe these new terms would be an improvement. However it's a tradeoff. If this improvement would be a major headache for you then I agree it's not worth it.