[LSC] Sticker sheets numbers

[ldraw at holly-wood.it]

Dear LSC,

since the numbering of the stickers is on your laundry list
http://www.ldraw.org/Article399.html I'd like to summarize
the answers we got from Joshua Delahunty (dulcaoin) on the
issue.

w.

**************************************************************

Q: Could you put some light on the sticker sheet numbers?
there is some discussion at the PT if we should use the
first or second number on modern sticker sheets:

http://www.bricklink.com/PL/6761stk01.jpg

It would be helpful if we know what the numbers (71403 /
4106330) stand for? 

A: ... you have Design ID's and Item Numbers.  Design ID's
are fixed, and run somewhat parallel to the embossed numbers
you'd see on a part.  They stand for that part (fairly)
ongoing, and do not change.

Item numbers change over time.  You might think of them as
TLG internal "SKUs". They're actually identifiers in an
internal SAP database used since approximately 1995.

The same part, in the same color, can have different Item 
#'s over time.  Once a part leaves the active assortment
(some parts stay permanently, many leave and reenter the
assortment), it usually (but not always) loses that number,
and will receive a new Item number upon "re-activation" in
the future.

the 7xxxx number is the Design ID
the 4xxxyyyy number is the Item Number

I'd vote ... to use the first number over the second.

***

Q: Are stickers treated as parts or are they numbered with
different criteria

A: Stickers (labels) are in the same "number space" as
parts.  They're all in the same "bucket".  You won't see a
part with 70123 and a label with 70123 or vice-versa.  That
goes for everything: cloth patterns, rubber bands, screws
that go in motors, etc.

***************************************************************


Joshua asked tho inclued the following in the FW.

I've been working on a LEGO elements and sets database since
my LEGO re-awakening in 1993, when I discovered
alt.toys.lego; while I have official references to back up
the assertions I make, much of it is my personal
interpretation of official information, and it has changed
over time as I've gotten more information, and heard from
more people. I have been wrong about my conclusions in the
past, and have had to change some of my understandings of
"the truth" over time. I believe what I'm saying to be
accurate and true, to the best of my knowledge, but I'm
still *not* "The horse's mouth" on these issues, officially
or otherwise.

That said, I've collected a lot of official information,
either first hand or second-hand, that presents a pretty
solid perspective; and I endeavour to be as accurate as
possible, given the information I have at hand.

-- joshua