Discussions on spatialed
Start a New Discussion
-
-
-
d'oh. Just found Mythical event location.
Could we change the name of Mythical event location to Location in Mythology? Not all locations in mythology have events associated with them.
Thanks
-
That sounds fine to me. However, can you suggest another property or two that would help justify the broadened scope of the type's name? It currently only has the "Events at this location" property.
-
Taking cue from the location type, I'd suggest the following:
Contains & Contained by both expecting "Location in Mythology". Asgard contains Valhalla in Norse mythology.
Also Adjoins expecting an "Location in mythology adjoining relationship".In this manner we can build up relational maps of mythological worlds!
-
Done and done!
-
ed,
Thanks very much.
I did forget the most important property though, mythology! Otherwise there is no way to link Valhalla to Norse mythology.
-
+1. I've added the property and reciprocated it on "Mythology".
-
Excellent, thanks Ed.
-
-
-
jeff,
thought you might be interested in this one - I've created a base for common patterns in schemas. I'd noticed you'd used the word 'phylogeny' a lot in relation to schema design, and thought it might be a good idea to identify the types which have this.
What are your thoughts?
Iain
-
This is a cool idea. I was talking with Robert a little while back, and he's actually identified four different semantic patterns that use this schema design (that is, of types that have two properties that expect each other, there are four distinct relationships these represent).
1. Phylogeny: basically a hierarchical classification -- each topic is a member of a sub- or super-category. Organism classification is probably the canonical example.
2. Parent-child: each topic is begotten by (or begets) the other topics. The TV Episode spin-offs property is a non-biological example. (Organism is the other biological example.)
3. Sequence: you've already identified this
4. Containment: I can't think of any besides Location, but that doesn't mean they're not out there.
I tend to use "phylogeny" loosely when I'm talking about schemata to mean "two properties on a type that expect each other", since in terms of actual design there is no difference -- only in the ways humans interpret the patterns.
-
Wouldn't "Siblings" (single property linked to a CVT with a single property to indicate some form of equality) represent another type of relationship? Examples include Sibling relationship (of course) and the new Organization partnership.
-
Yes -- Iain's called it the Peer schema pattern. We usually call it a sibling relationship, but it's the same thing.
-
@ed, thanks for the example I've added it to the pattern. I've also renamed peer to sibling and added an alias.
@jeff Thanks for the input, I confused parent-child and phylogeny. I've made a new parent child type and renamed properties in phylogeny.
I'm still slightly unsure about the definitions, particularly the difference between phylogeny, parent/child and containment, so I've tried to define them in stricter terms using graph theory concepts:
- Phylogeny - It is a forest/directed acyclic graph. I'm still slightly confused about how it is used in freebase - it is a self reciprocating parent/child relationship. e.g. organism classification to organism classification. If it the property links two different types, it would be a parent/child. Also, if the property linking to the parent is unique, it wouldn't allow union between trees so isn't a forest graph, and is just a tree graph - therefore a containment pattern.
- Parent/Child - A directed acyclic graph/forest where topics are vertices and properties edges. Given my guess that a phylogeny is a parent/child between one type, this pattern is different by being between two types. i.e. the parent is a different type from the child. e.g. book to book edition.
- Sequence - an acyclic path graph
- Containment - In set theory, A is a proper subset of B. And would be a tree in graph theory. This would be a self reciprocating property, otherwise it is a parent/child pattern.
- Sibling - graphs between topics of the same type, with a definition of some sort of equality between linked topics. I was going to suggest it be a complete graph based on the /people/siblings, but realised that wouldn't necessarily work for step families or /influence_node/peers.
I think this makes sense, and if these concepts are OK I'll update the descriptions on the pattern CVTs.
Given the graph theory rules, it would be possible to run a bot and identify topics for data gardening, or identify types/properties which follow these patterns based on their current use in freebase.
-
my definition of phlogeny being distinct from a parent/child purely based on whether a property is self-reciprocated on the same type, or is reciprocated on a different type doesn't feel right.
Under that definition it means that the relationship between /people/person/parents and /people/person/children is a phylogeny rather than a parent/child relationship....
Not intuitive, but perhaps logically OK?
Otherwise the seperation between phylogeny and parent-child patterns would have to be based entirely on whether the topic is an abstract concept e.g. organism classification, or is a real object e.g. person. And that's a whole other rabbit hole.
gaah! *head explodes*
-
Note that I didn't make up these distinctions, so I accept no credit or blame for them. :)
Re phylogeny vs. parent-child: it does seem to fall into abstract vs. concrete, doesn't it? I think there is a logical difference between the relationship of a partent to a child and a genus to a species, however: a genus is a category that comprises one or more species; a parent is not a category, and does not comprise any children. To take this away from people, the "spin-off/spun off from" properties of Company are a parent/child pattern, but the "parent company/subsidiary companies" properties are a phylogeny (although in this case, a date-mediated one).
Note that species are also proper subsets of genuses, so I don't think that that can be the distinguishing factor between phylogeny and containment.
Properties linking two different types are an interesting point: these can follow the same semantic patterns as any of the ones listed above, but are inherently limited in number of steps, rather than open-ended, which is what we've largely been discussing here. (So Adaptation/Adapted Work is a parent/child relationship; Country/Administrative Division is containment; etc.)
-
properties of two different types -> I've tweaked the phylogeny, parent/child and containment types so they can have 2 different types (one for the parent type, and one for the child type). If a type is self-reciprocating, the same type would appear in both properties.
phylogeny vs parent/child -> Agreed phylogeny is for abstract categories, parent/child for the concrete. both super & sub* of a phylogeny are abstract categories/sets.
phylogeny and containment -> if phylogeny is for abstract categories which can contain other abstract categories, then containment is for the concrete/physical which can contain other concrete/physical? e.g. location/location or building complex/building.
* BTW I'm using super/sub in place of parent/child as a way of differentiating when speaking about phylogeny.
-
As the properties on phylogeny, parent/child and containment are now all the same (parent type, parent->child property, child type, child->parent property); I'm tempted to normalise and just have one type for all three patterns, but include an additional property called "pattern variation".
This property would allow for differentiation between the patterns by selecting phylogeny, parent/child or containment from an enumeration.
-
-
-
Ed-
Realizing it is pretty easy to go in a number of directions with entering info. Is there a way to create a template for users to follow? The info for most JVs will be pretty similar, but looking at where we differ in how and where we entered the data for the AMJV vs. the LMVJV is pretty enlightening.
-John
-
Yeah, it is, especially because JVs have such a unique organizational structure. If I was any good at programming and/or there were more than a couple dozen JVs, I would suggest creating a web page template that connects to Freebase and presents the JV properties in a more intuitive entry form. Being neither's the case, we can use this discussion to flesh out an outline for a white paper that summarizes which types and properties are best used to describe JVs.
Some thoughts about how our two examples differ...
Employer: This is an "included type" of the "Organization" type but I don't really think it is relevant to JVs because JV staff draw their paychecks from various NGOs and agencies. Those are the employers IMO.
Coordinated program: I modeled this type primarily for JVs but tried to keep it general enough to fit other topics. "Participation group" is an included type now (see below), although I don't think it was when I first modeled the LMVJV. The "Partner Agency/Organization" property is where I've been listing JV partners because I think of "organization member" as people in most organizations. However, the "organization member" documentation says members can be cities, countries, etc. so your approach is just as valid (but I like mine better :) ).
Participation group: has a property of "Participants" that is a compound value type (CVT) to connect people with their role and participation dates. This is where I was thinking that data describing staff (other than coordinators) should go. See the ACJV for an example. This does add denormalization with the job title property of the "Employment tenure" CVT used for the "Employment history" property of "Person", but allows people to be described as having roles that may not be their job titles.
-
-
-
spatialed, i love the mystery base. let me play with the alien schema. once its done we may know once and for all!!!
what i mean is id like to be an admin on that base if possible,
cheers-
-
hey, do you know anything about organism/organism classification?
i'm trying to do a list of all dinosaurs but all the Ornithopods are already typed as 'organism classification', instead of organism, like Laosaurus.
is this wrong?
-
Organism is only to be used to describe individual organisms. For example Seabiscuit: http://www.freebase.com/view/en/seabiscuit
Organism classication is used to describe taxonomy (i.e., similar groups of organisms).
-
how would you feel about mystery being renamed 'The paranormal'?
or am i forking it too much?
-
I'm on the fence... Originally, I started this base to describe cryptids, which could just be good at hiding and not outside science's current ability to explain or measure - there just haven't been enough well structured surveys to prove or refute them. I started up the Folklore base to hold those "cryptids" that were physically impossible or otherwise so imaginary to be more mythical than mysterious. Adding UFOs to the Mystery base expanded its scope quite a bit, which has led us to this subject of paranormal...
Short answer, I'm leaning towards sticking with "Mystery" as a nursery base. It's done a decent job of spawning new ideas for schema so maybe it should stay as-is, with new bases such as a "Paranormal" splitting off of it when ready. For example, the UFO schema are starting to mature pretty well so maybe it's time to fledge them into a "UFO" base of their own? I could go either way about that. It's kind of fun to see all the mysteries in one place too!
-
ha, yes agree. is it possible to move types around? I dont object to a sister ufo base, or paranormal base. your call. i was going all 'miracles-that-jesus-did' this afternoon.
if we split it, help me out on the others.
-
Will do. Probably the best way to approach a split is to create a new base and then file a Jira ticket with a list of relevant schema to move to it. There was a short period when base admins could do it themselves and I betcha that functionality will eventually be made available again but for now we need to ask nice like.
-
Oh yeah, it's interesting that you are modeling miracles. I was just today thinking about modeling sacred relics...
-
waitin on the jira..
-
-
Yeah!
-
-
-
FYI, I slightly adjusted the description for Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center so it was clear who "our nation" was :) Feel free to edit if you'd like to word it differently.
-
-
-
i noticed you added neal smith as the dedicatee for Neal Smith Wildlife Refuge. thanks for taking an interest in the dedication domain - i think it's quite fun. however, this is more of a namesake relationship than a dedication. dedications are really only for explict dedications by a dedicator.
-
Thanks for the info. Do you think it would be appropriate to model namesakes in your dedication base too? It sounds like namesakes are outside your intended purposes for this base but they are close enough a subject where this might be a good place for them.
-
Check Kirrily’s Namesake and Name source types.
-
Thanks Chris. Guess I shoulda searched for it before suggesting it...
-
-
-
Hi spatialed. I was looking at your Land Cover base and I saw a bunch of earth-orbiting satellites in there (specifically in LC). I wasn't sure if this was accident or on purpose, so I thought I'd point it out in case it was an accident.
-
Hi Evening. My LC type is just a bucket to hold topics associated with land cover descriptions and mapping so I can find them easily. A few months ago there was a discussion about modeling satellites. I made some suggestions for how the existing models should be changed and was asked to pursue it. I contacted some folks at NASA and found out that they were creating metadata schema to describe platforms, sensors, etc. I therefore decided to wait until NASA was further along in its schema development so we could possibly import or scrape their data into compatible Freebase schema. I've seen a few screen captures of the proposed NASA pages and found this DIF writer's guide but haven't heard of anything else yet. So, no accident but not really that purposeful either (yet). Thanks for asking.
-
-
-
Hi Ed,
I've noticed that you have 2 properties, Physiognomy and Satellite sensor status cotyped as LC and Topic. I'm guessing this might have been an errant mistyping due to autocomplete. I'd like to detype them - is that ok?
-
Sure but they were purposeful typings. LC is a bucket type I created for all types that have something to do with land cover mapping even if they are best placed in another domain. They are usually topics too. No problem if you want to detype them. I've put that project on the shelf for a little bit and know how to pick it back up later.
-
Thanks, Ed.
I think Physiognomy and Satellite sensor status (the properties) should be separate, discrete objects than Physiognomy and Satellite sensor status (the topic and LC) and not conflated. You do have a separate Physiognomy type (http://www.freebase.com/tools/schema/user/spatialed/land_cover/physiognomy) - should that have included types of topic and LC?
-
-
-
the type /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover has as an included type /user/spatialed/default_domain/classification_system.
but /user/spatialed/default_domain/classification_system has /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover as an included type too,
creating a cyclic included types relationship. is this an error?
-
Where do you see land cover as an included type of classification system? I don't see land cover (or any other types) as an included type of classification system. However, classification system is an included type of land cover. The name is actually "Land cover classification system" to identify it as a subset of "Classification system". I've changed the type key to reflect this nestedness. The new address is /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover_classification_system
If there is a cyclic relationship somewhere let me know and I will change it because it would be an error.
-
i'm seeing a cyclical relationship in:
http://freebase.com/view/schema/user/spatialed/default_domain/satellite_image_product
a satellite image product has itself as an included type.
is this an error?
-
you have a cyclical relationship:
http://freebase.com/view/schema/user/spatialed/default_domain/satellite_image_product
i click on the first included type "Land cover classification system" of "Satellite Image Product"
http://freebase.com/view/schema/user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover_classification_system
and "Land cover classification system" has as its first included type "Satellite Image Product"
-
Good catch. Thanks. I was still figuring out how to work with Included types when I created those schema. They probably still need some work but I removed the cyclical relationships. Let me know if you see any other problems. I plan to get back to these schema and start adding a lot more data for them May-June.
-
-
-
Hi Ed,
I know you subscribe to the data-model list, but I wanted to let you know that I noticed that your type /motorcycle/motorcycle_product_review has a property that expects one of the types listed in the email. You can review the email here.
-
Thanks Bryan for the heads up and nudge that it affected me. I used reviewer only because it seemed to fit best but I didn't really like it. I think I'll switch to Author but the way that type is described it may not be appropriate either...
-
-
-
Ed, there were a couple of odd topics that were typed by you as units of moment of force (kilograms per cubic meter and pounds per square inch). I have de-typed them, but you may want to check if you had any properties using them as units. Please double-check them.
-
Ok. Why are they odd? I added them because torque is commonly measured in terms of pounds per square inch or kilograms per cubic meter. How should I enter torque data?
-
Torque is usually measured in force × distance: foot-pounds, Newton-meters (the SI unit). This can be decomposed to mass × area ÷ time-squared; I have never heard of torque measured in units of density (mass ÷ volume, kg/m³) or pressure (force ÷ area, psi). Where are you seeing torque measured in these units? It may be a field-specific jargonistic
use of the term, but it’s not one I’ve heard before. -
Oops. I meant to add inch-pounds and went with an existing topic I mistakenly thought was synonomous. Similarly, I mistakenly thought that kilograms per cubic meter was a metric equivalent. Inch-pounds does need to be included though.
-
You should be able to add inch-pounds. Add a new instance of Unit of Moment of Force and give it a name. You must also give it a “Dimension” (Torque) and a “Canonical Abbreviation” (in-lb?) in order to be able to use it with a property definition. An equivalence in Newton-meters is also encouraged (0.112984829, I believe).
-
-
-
the type /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover has as an included type /user/spatialed/default_domain/classification_system.
but /user/spatialed/default_domain/classification_system has /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover as an included type too,
creating a cyclic included types relationship. is this an error?
-
