Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
"You need not play well - just help your opponent to play badly" (Genrikh Chepukaitis)
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
1 to 7 of 7
This observation came to mind. As we happen to be getting more sites on board, there is a definite chance of them having games that don't fit IAGO and are not abstract strategy games. When they feed the game results into the data stream, it would be important for IAGO to not pick up games that don't fit it. Abstract in front of the name of the game would help here. I believe it is of benefit if this data stream set of standards gets adopted across all of boardgames, including the categorization notation.
Anyhow, just my two cents on this.
The aggregator only collects game records for game types registered with IAGO. The site can publish an RSS including *all* their games if they wish. The aggregator will only take what it wants. The IAGO "data stream" will come from our aggregator.
We need a way to identify the games that are registered with IAGO. That is why I was suggesting we have "abstract" in there. We could end up sticking IAGO as part of the game name for games that are registered with IAGO, if that is preferred. The approach I am suggesting also helps push boardgames to help standardize taxonomy.
Indeed we do, but if you want to do some broad taxonomy, then organizational IDs like "IAGO" have no place whatsoever, and just because a game falls under the taxonomic category of "abstract" doesn't necessarily mean that it will be supported by IAGO. For this to work, I need a comprehensive and authoritative list of games we wish to "support" (whatever that ends up meaning) and unique identifiers. These then get put in a database and published so that game sites that wish to participate can generate compatible report formats. Then the aggregator will actually have some useful data.
What needs to be done to get the authoritative list is an agreement to standards as to what is in the Clubhouse, and also how we format the game index name. We need agreement here on this. When sites end up putting a game in the data stream, it will have what game it is sending out, and we need to track that.
I am leaning towards having a game index name and a catalog name. The index name would be the game name, and followed by an indicator to differentiate it from another game with the same name. The catalog name would have details like the category, subcategory, and variant info. We should look to get more involved. I will try to hit up the other Clubhouse websites to see if i can get interest in this.
Well, here's a start.
Looks like a good starting point. I would swap name of designer and variant name in the heirarchy. Also, do we want to include other things, like the number of players? I was wondering for the case of a game like blitz chess, the amount of time control would matter. Do we want to consider time control a variant itself, or have that as something in the taxonomy?
1 to 7 of 7