Discussions on Architecture
Start a New Discussion
-
-
I want to propose a new property, “preliminary forms,” that might be applied to the following types within the Architecture domain:
- building
- house
- landscape project
- skyscraper
- structure
- tower
This property will serve to connect architectural/artistic “products” with their design/artistic “process.” What little access the general public has to the private processes of artists is mostly contained in websites that remain hidden if not sought out. It is important for the less expansive body of data which surrounds artistic means rather than its so-called ends, not be lost in the web’s expanse. A “preliminary form” property will begin to link process (blueprints, etc.) to product and bridge these gaps.
-
-
-
I would like to see added a date mediated "Managed By" property on Building Complex. For example, this would allow linking for Film studio complexes as well as notable Chicago business parks, etc, etc.
I use a "Managed by" property on my Port of Call type. As do several other user types
So, perhaps on 2nd thought, maybe a separate Type would be better instead such as "Managed Location" with a data mediated property to use whenever the need arises ?
Thoughts ?
-
-
-
Would anyone disagree with the use of 'Coterminous with' property to handle multiple museums located inside ? Or should /architecture/museum be expanding somehow to handle this use case ?
Example: Lexington History Center
-
Yes, I would disagree with using "coterminous with" in this case. For one, the four museums in the Lexington center are probably not intermingled, but kept discrete. I would use Building Occupant for the four museums, and not type the building itself as a museum at all.
-
OK, I think I have found the source of the problem. A museum ("the institiution" which is an org) would 9 times out of 10 occupy a building.
It would probably be in the best interest for the Type /architecture/museum to automatically include the Type /architecuture/building_occupant
Examples that I fixed and filled in: http://www.freebase.com/view/en/hampton_university_museum
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/national_museum_of_african_american_history_and_culture
Agreement ?
-
A ha! Building Occupant... completely forgot about using that, as I have in the past. Thanks for the reminder ! Fixing her up now.
-
-
-
Structure and Building seem intended to describe specific instances of structures. Is there any means to describe types of buildings, or should Structure and Building simply be used for that too?
thanks
paul
-
Building function would work for building categories, but not structure categories.
-
Isn't Building function only supposed to be for the purpose of the building, what about describing the type of the building, or structure? For example, the topic that raised this question was Oast house, a particular type of building design used for drying oats. I did add the Building function type, but to me that still seems a bit wrong, I would have said that drying oats is the building function, and it might be that in other parts of the world, different designs or types of building were created to do the same thing. Or am I reading this wrong?
-
Is there a need for a "Structure type" type? Some structures have specific Freebase types, e.g. Skyscraper, Tower, but is it really the intention to add types like this for all structure types?
-
If you look at the properties of Structure: http://www.freebase.com/schema/type/architecture/structure
you will see that the properties are those that are common to Towers, Bridges, Buildings. Then these latter types impart any additional properties specific to these types
http://www.freebase.com/schema/type/architecture/building
(note: there is yet another layer in the case of a Skyscraper which is both a Building and a Structure.
Structure is formally an "included type" of these other types. So when a user types an entity as a Building, the backend automatically types it as a Structure as well.
I think it might make sense to move the Building Function property down to the Structure type and rename it "Structure Function"
The other option would be to create additional types. I'm not sure what the consensus is on this kind of choice. If an Oat House doesn't have any particular properties of interest other than it's an oat house, perhaps it doesn't merit being it's own type. I'm not sure.
-
Hmmm. There are types of buildings that are structural types rather than types based on use. Examples: A-frame, geodesic dome, tower, mudbrick, wattle and daub. Now I think of it, these are to some extent styles/methods of construction. They might be treated as "type of building" depending how you look at it. Those seem different from "use" to me.
-
I agree that these are different from use, but I can imagine some where it's less clear-cut. Is "apartment building" a type of structure or a "building function"? So there would definitely be some overlap or confusion, depending on how you look at it. But there are a lot of kinds of structure that are unlikely to get their own types, so a classification type might be useful. Various Wikipedia lists of tallest structures include both "structural type" and "use" (e.g. List of tallest structures in the world.
I'm also not really sure whether things like wattle-and-daub and mudbrick should be types of structures or something else entirely.
-
I think mudbrick and wattle and daub are more like construction methods, or construction materials. Should there a way to define what the structure is made of, or how it was made? That might overlap with the types in /base/engineering though.
For the apartment example, I'd say "apartment building" is a function, whereas things like "tower block", "condominium building", "Victorian conversion" (or whatever you might call a townhouse converted to flats) are structure/building types, i.e. there are different styles of apartment building.
-
SO to bring back a seemingly dormant topic, what about forms (or is it elements or layout?) of structures, like the venerable Rotunda?
-
There is also Oast house (http://www.freebase.com/view/en/oast_house) and Dovecote (http://www.freebase.com/view/en/dovecote) as examples I have previously come across and would like to see typed as Structure types or Building types. They were typed as Building function and Structure respectively, which I've removed, because neither is correct.
-
Here are another couple:
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/prefabricated_buildings http://www.freebase.com/view/en/dolmen
-
I've created a "Building type" type in my base and added a selection of things to it (many of which had no type).
http://www.freebase.com/view/user/pmackay/default_domain/building_type
-
-
-
Trying to be a Linkedin/Facebook-like architecture-based experience. To bad another restrictive usage/rights site. More keys/weblinks for our topics?
http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blog/dyn/15954/editors-pick-cathedral-for-cycling/
-
-
-
We've been doing a lot on this base, and I think it's a good candidate for the commons. The main issues, I think, are getting all the enumerations set up and finalizing the Light Characteristic stuff (or maybe we're done with that)?
Also: what commons should this go into? Architecture?
-
Also, of course, documentation!
-
Attention Architecture admins: What would you think about the Lighthouse schema being a part of the Architecture domain?
-
sounds good to me. the lighthouse type already includes /architecture/structure, so it fits the pattern. what next?
-
Thad: this base looks ready to me; all it needs are some type descriptions. As soon as you add some, I'll move it to /architecture.
-
DONE ! Did I miss anything ?
-
Nope, looks good!
-
Gave the base a nice graphic header. Created from scratch by me from this public domain image: http://www.nps.gov/history/maritime/light/portland.htm
-
Pretty. Does this mean you'd like to keep the base around after the types are promoted?
-
Hokay. I'll promote these now, and nuke the base.
-
-
-
http://www.openbuildings.com/ has. CC 3.0 license so the only hiccup might be the non-commercial use only, which I believe Freebase meets.
-
Their licence is CC-BY-SA-NC, which is definitely not compatible with Freebase's CC-BY. Please don't upload any data from that site.
-
Just to clarify, the only CC license that is compatible with Freebase is CC-BY. Anything with an NC or SA or ND clause is not compatible.
-
To clarify even further, only a CC-BY license which permits attributions of the form "Freebase - the world's database" linked to http://www.freebase.com (or an individual Freebase) is compatible. If the form of attribution required by the CC-BY license is a link to Crunchbase.com or crediting "John Smith" or anything other than that required by the Freebase CC-BY license, the two CC-BY's aren't compatible.
-
This is an ongoing discussion. Attribution chaining is difficult not just for us but for all CC projects, as you know, and we are working on it. It will require a TOS change, which we weren't able to do just recently (I'm sure you can imagine why). Now we're part of Google, we'll be revisiting the whole issue.
-
We could reconcile the Open Buildings topics with Freebase topics, and store the keys/URIs. (Some improvements in the Keymapper app to allow it to deal with paging would be welcome).
-
I'd love to discuss how OpenBuildings may be able to help enrich building data on Freebase. I think Freebase is a great concept and we're "manually" resolving some of the issues that you have addressed (to improve tagging, filtering, search etc.).
I am not sure how you guys work - we could continue the discussion here, or I could also be contacted on adel [at] openbuildings.com .
Thanks, speak soon!
Adel Zakout CEO OpenBuildings.com
-
Hi Adel. Thanks for joining the conversation. Normally I'd suggest that we continue here so everyone can participate, but the forum notifications are broken (which also means you may never read this), so I'm not really sure what to suggest. Perhaps the freebase-discuss mailing list?
Have you reviewed the Freebase license and terms of service? If you have a subset of data that you'd be willing to contribute under those terms, that would be great. From a logistical point of view it would probably need to be restricted to stuff created by your staff since any users would have contributed under a different license.
Another thing we could investigate is creating links from Freebase to OpenBuildings and/or vice versa. Typically we use a strong permanent identifier for this. I couldn't tell at glance whether you expose this information in a way that would be useful for linking, for example, directly to an architect.
Speaking of non-commercial, how are you able to run advertising on your site -- or do you not yet have any content contributed by external users under the NC license? This is one key difference with the Freebase licensing in that it doesn't require the NC restriction for downstream consumers.
-
Hi guys,
I apologise on the slow reply! I'd love to continue this conversation and we have some big ideas/concepts/changes that we are currently discussing. I'd prefer for these to remain out of the public eye for now ;) -- would you mind continuing via email / skype or another form of communication?
Thanks!
Best,
Adel
-
-
-
Would Freebase be an appropriate tool for managing pre- and post- energy consumption data for buildings that are undergoing some type of energy conserving or renewable energy improvement? Communities that implement the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program are supposed to measure and report the energy savings of their projects.
-
I think it potentially could be. Can you say a little bit more about how the data is modeled? Is it just a number and a date (e.g. 19 kW on July 17) or is there more to it than that?
-
@jkintree Absolutely. I'd love to see that data on Freebase. I'm not aware of any types or properties which that sort of data can be entered into in Freebase at the moment (we do have some schemas for LEED though), but it's a 5 minute job to put something together.
As Tom asked, have you an example of the sort of data which you'd like to enter into Freebase?
-
Aside from the address of the building, which could be a residence or a business location, there would be the
names of the utilities, probably both electric and natural gas, and in some locations possibly propane or fuel oil
billing date from the utility
amount of kwh, or therms of natural gas, or gallons of fuel oil, and so on for that billing period
if available, number of heating degree days during the winter billing period, or number of cooling degree days during the summer
cost of the energy purchased in that billing period
the above properties would be good and fairly quantitative
to be complete there should be a description of the energy conserving or renewable energy improvement, such as number of square feet of storm windows installed, or 70% efficient furnace replace with a 90% efficient furnace, or 3 kw of peak generating capacity of solar panels installed, and so on
there is the date of the improvement
in addition to the description and date of the improvement, there should be the cost of having that improvement installed
to really be comprehensive, we should have the name of the contractor who installed the improvement
that should just about do it.
It's not a trivial task; the potential rewards are considerable; it could help bring clarity to an otherwise fuzzy aspect of energy strategy.
The other unknown is will local governments, citizens, and contractors want to input the date to make this work? If we build it, will they come?
-
Bringing Ed into this conversation as he's involved in the Green Building base.
-
Hi jkintree,
I think it's an interesting idea in general. However, that's a lot of information to start adding and could get even more complex from there. For example, "number of heating degree days during the winter billing period" might best be linked to broader locations (perhaps county? depends on how the data are available) rather than specific addresses. In other words, some of the data are better linked a couple nodes away from the building topics. Also, kwh per billing period seems too specific to garner interest from the larger community or apply outside your specific use case. Information with the temporal frequency of kwh per billing period are more "data" then "metadata" and therefore probably better stored in another database.
Besides the Green Building base, you might want to check out the Wind Energy and Solar Energy bases that organize some of the imported Wikipedia topics and expand on them with addition content. These bases might give you some ideas about how to start moving forward with your vision while also making use of some of the information that is already here.
-
Good points, Ed. While data for heating degree days is placed on monthly bills, at least that is the case with Laclede Gas Company in St. Louis, it is also possible to get heating and cooling degree days data from http://www.crh.noaa.gov. Instead of kwh per billing period, maybe kwh per year or therms of natural gas per year would be better values to track for buildings. I'll look at the other bases you mentioned. Thanks very much for your feedback.
-
Thanks for pointing me to the Solar Energy base, Ed. The table for Solar Power Plants could be another example of what I'm looking for with respect to energy consumption of buildings, and a calculated cost per therm or cost per kwh value for energy conserving and renewable energy projects that are done on buildings. The table for Solar Power Plants could be improved with a calculated cost per kwh for each topic. The cost per kwh would be calculated from the data in four properties for each topic: construction costs annual operating costs annual kwh AC energy produced expected lifetime of the plant, such as 20 years
Having a cost per kwh value calculated for each plant would provide an apples-to-apples method for comparing solar power plants, even when they use different technologies, such as PV, concentrating thermal, sterling engines, and so on. The ability to calculate such values is where the power of Freebase can be realized compared with static articles such as are found at Wikipedia.
If it would be simpler to implement that kind of web application for Solar Power Plants in the near future, and later to try a similar application for cost per therm and cost per kwh for energy conserving and renewable energy projects in buildings, I would like to help move it forward with the table you have already started for Solar Power Plants.
-
Try again; the four properties for calculating cost per kwh for Solar Power Plants are: 1) construction costs, 2) operating costs, 3) kwh AC produced per year, 4) years of operation.
-
These seem like good properties on types of theInfrastructure and Power Generation domains. Can you add them to this discussion? For some reason I can't tag discussions using FF or IE right now. Their community would have much better input on how to do this well.
-
We're talking about properties for calculating cost per kwh: 1) construction costs, 2) annual operating costs, 3) annual kwh AC production, and 4) expected lifetime of the power plant in years.
Are you saying that if those properties were included in the Infrastructure and Power Generation domains, that they would automatically be part of the Solar Power Plant type?
I'll try to add those domains to this discussion.
-
Yes, there is not currently a Solar Power Plant type. What you are seeing in the base is just a view filtering Power station by Solar power plant. We can create a Solar Power Plant type though if there are properties that are common (and interesting or useful) to solar power plants and not common to power stations of all types.
-
Actually, it would be more interesting to be able to compare the cost per kwh for electricity that is generated at different kinds of power plants; renewable versus fuel-based, and different kinds of renewable power plants with each other. I'm not sure how willing power plant operators/owners will be to release the necessary data, and maybe some won't be willing to release it at all. Still, if Freebase has the capacity to handle the data, we can try.
-
-
-
An architectural feature type would be useful for things like Merlon, Mansard roof, etc. The Structure type might then include a list of features that a structure has.
-
-
-
I noticed there's a type here called Tower that has no properties and 12 instances. I think it probably shoudln't have been created in the first place. Maybe we should delete it?
-
I don't see any need for it. All relevant properties to towers are already in the structure type.
-
http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx
The CTBUH defines a tower as having less than 50% of the height occupied. As we have kept the tower type, could we add this as a definition to the description of the tower type?
I doubt we would have much data for percentage of height occupied, so limited use in adding that as a property to tower.
-
-
-
A missing property that seems of interest amongst the height-loving skyscraper-o-philes is Occupied floor height.
Highest possible terrestrial-structure-based human viewing spot is the Occupied floor height.
Could be placed within /Structure or /Skyscraper (former makes the most sense as it already has the related roof height).
-
There is "Structural Height" on structure and "Height with Antenna" on skyscraper. There is note on the former saying "For Skyscrapers this should not include antennae or spires." So I guess I'm implying that the former means occupied height. Maybe it would make more sense to have it be the other way around, but I think the bottom line is: people only care about this distinction with skyscrapers and I've given them the slots to describe it so good enough? I could add occupied height to skyscraper, but then what should they put in for "Structural Height" ?
-
I assume occupied height is measured to the floor level of the occupied space? (and not to the ceiling/roof above it)
If to the floor level, for any building with an inaccessible roof (i.e. no roof top terrace, and ignoring access for maintenance and cleaning), the occupied height of a building will be different from the building height (measure to the top of the superstructure , excluding antennae and spires). As most tall buildings have an unoccupied plant room on the topmost level, the difference can be significant.
In theory occupied height belongs on building, although in practice it's probably only recorded for skyscrapers.
-
I guess we could use the emporis standards: http://standards.emporis.com/?nav=realestate&lng=3&esn=81731 I'm just not sure this level of detail is necessary. Wikipedia articles don't seem to dwell on this particular detail. The emporis standard seems to mirror what sprocketonline is asserting: a maintenance/plant floor doesn't count. I guess this is interesting from the financial point of view, I'm not sure how it fits in to the pissing match aspect of all of this: asserting who is the tallest. Show me the data! Do you have oodles of data for this that is just waiting for a slot in the schema?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Tall_Buildings_and_Urban_Habitat & http://www.ctbuh.org/HighRiseInfo/TallestDatabase/Criteria/tabid/446/language/en-US/Default.aspx
From this page, yes, I guess it is a bit esoteric, most would simply do measurements from roof and spire heights and argue from there.
"The CTBUH ranks the height of buildings using four different methods:
- Height to architectural top of the building. This is the main criterion under which the CTBUH ranks the height of buildings. Height measurements begin at sidewalk and run to the top of the building, inclusive of spires but excluding items such as flag poles or antennas.
- To highest occupied floor: Height to the floor of the highest occupied floor of the building.
- To top of roof: Height to the top of the roof.
- To tip of spire/antenna: Height to the tip of spire, pinnacle, antenna, mast or flag pole. [edit] Tallest database The CTBUH maintains an extensive database of the tallest buildings in the world, organized by various categories. Buildings under construction are also included, although not ranked until completion."
-
-
-
All museum's have them, some well known museums are general 'national' or 'state' museums to simply store the loot (I mean collections) of nations or great people of that nation (like all the stuff Napoleon came back with during his many military adventures ended up in the Louvre and other French museums.
But most museum's have much narrower mission statements/goals for their focus in collections. Museums for the Jewish, Greek, Armenian Diaspora. Museums for a minority people. Museums for a broad subject (Vidual Arts or Culinary Arts or Military History) or a specific one (PEZ dispensors).
So there could be a a combination of Museum types (Museum Type: Research Museum, Display Museum, Educational Museum, etc?) and Museum Focus/Goal/Subject which be Jewish Diaspora, Civil Rights Movement of the Deep South, Japanese Culture? Museum could have a enumerated type for Public/Private Foundation/Education Instution. Major donorships should be captured at some time as well, with what specifically was donated/built.
-
We're hoping to refactor museums entirely. Frankieroberto and some other museum wonks were helping me with that. There's the beginning of a model in my MLA base. If/when we get around to it, this will replace the Architecture domain's museum type.
-
Great, the peoples of the world are happy to hear it.
-
+1 from an architecture admin!
-
If museums are getting refactored, something should be done about the assumption that museum == building. Some museums are multi-building campuses, some are contained a room in a fort or other building, and some occupy an entire building, but have an identity distinct from the building (e.g. the maritime museum moved from the infirmary building to the navy bakery building in 1997)
-
Exactly. There are also many that are online or virtual only, or that move from one building to another, or where there are multiple museums in one building.
The MLA (Museums, Libraries, and Archives) base where I'm working on a draft of this has the following core types:
* Institution -- previously "museum"
* MLA operator -- the organisation that runs the museum, eg. the Springfield Historical Society runs the Springfield Museum.
There are three subtypes of institution: museum, archive, library. Each has (or may have) specific properties. An example would be that libraries are often parts of "library systems" (see examples in the existing Library commons), and have circulation statistics.
Then there are types and properties related to collections, where you can say that for instance the Elgin Marbles consist of X Y and Z specific pieces, and are currently held by the British Museum. The modeling for this is proving to be very complex!
-
-
-
The Engineer, Engineering Firm, and Architectural contractor types connect to Structure via properties called "Projects" on each. None of them are widely used: 80 engineers, 54 engineering firms, 111 architectural contractors.
I propose we remove/refactor these to use the new Project-related types, which allow us to specify a multiplicity of roles.
(I'm not suggesting we do this for Architect yet, as that's used by apps and so forth.)
-
-
-
The building function property needs to take into account time since buildings that are in use for any length of time have different uses at different points in their life.
-
Sounds right. I'm wondering whether "function" should move down to the structure type, in addition.
-
I agree, both with the suggestion for time-mediation and also moving it to structure.
I'd drafted something more complex in the Architecture2 base - which included operator and allowing for a different name when used for different functions (e.g. London's Millennium Dome now known as the O2 when it changed from museum to concert venue). But that's just a nice-to-have.
-
-
-
hi, how about a 'destruction event' cvs property instead of 'destruction date' eg. ? ex. could link Old Dee Bridge
with Dee bridge disaster
sprocketonline made somethingsimilar for dam disasters, and i was just making one for bridge disasters, but maybe there could be one big one for structure
cheers
-
hey on second thought i may take a page from the person/deceased person debate and make a 'damaged or destroyed structure' type. hmm i dunno.
hey also, maybe structure could have a 'structure type' property,like disaster does.
~
-
lets swap destruction method and date for a destruction event cvs
-
hey iain, if you reciprocate Structure destroying event
we can model things like who was arrested for its destruction
cheers
-
spencer, were you addressing that to me? I'm not an admin of architecture, so can't help you there I'm afraid.
I'm currently remodelling my engineering schema to use the Project, Project participant and Project focus types. Once I've sorted engineering, I'm planning to draft up some types of how Structure could also fit into the project schema. We can try some stuff out on a draft type.
-
oh, i really like that idea. let me help~
disappointing if it would mean having to duplicate the existing type. i messaged brendan...
a structure type cotyping 'project, cvs-ing destruction event, and including a 'structure type' property would be harrrdcore_
-
Spencer, I've thrown together a http://architecture2.freebase.com/ draft base for prototyping changes to the structure type. I've made you admin - but do please discuss changes :)
To document my draft so far:
A structure has a location. (not 100% sure about this - as houses on cliff edges are often moved, and temporary structures can be deployed in many locations)
A Structure is a project focus (it might have a design, construction, remodelling, renovation etc. projects which focus on it). The Project type covers properties such as participating architects, dates of construction and construction costs etc..
A structure can be built on the site of a destroyed structure. A destroyed structure has a destroyed by event -> this event can be a disaster or a planned demolition project. The event type captures the date of destruction. A destroyed structure also links to new structures built on top.
A structure has owners and periods of ownership. ownership has a dated purchase cost (the purchase cost of the original owner should be equal to the site purchase - the construction cost is capture in the construction project)
A structure also has tenants, which aren't necessarily the owners. The tenants can use the structure for various purposes at different time periods. Tenants often rename a building based on the purpose: e.g. London's Millenium Dome was renamed The O2 after a change of purpose, but the exterior structure is the same.
A structure has heights, but these can vary depending on the number of extensions and renovations, so I have them as time based decimal numbers. The location type captures ground level elevation, geometry and area properties.
A structure can be composed of multiple internal structures and extensions. Reciprocating that a structure can be part of a larger structure.
-
Hey folks, I'm glad you're working on this. I'm generally supportive of migrating toward more rich schema (e.g. destruction information going from simple assertions to a cvt) Ideally, you could bang out a prototype and we could come up with a plan for migrating the existing structure type in the right direction. A fallback from that would be if you could use delegated properties from /architecture/structure where there is perfect overlap.
If we are able to agree on a new direction for /architecture/structure we also need a game plan for migrating existing data from the old "slots" to the new. A lot of this stuff involves a small number of property values, but some may require some bulk scripts.
Getting some feedback from the data-modeling list is always recommended, as well.
-
Just mailed the data-modeling list.
The prototype is at http://architecture2.freebase.com/ I'd like to have a good review of the draft, and find a load of edge cases before loading in any data.
Bulk scripts would be required for sure -> the draft is heavily reliant on the project type for handling architects, engineers, construction cost etc.. This relies on every structure type having an equivalent project topic (which I've been naming "Initial Design and Construction of foobar" so far).
-
-
-
Could we add 'Notable People Who Lived Here' as a property to House?
-
I like this idea. Then you can link old houses that are now museums to their notable owners (seems better than via namesake)
-
For U.S. places which having a listing in the National Register of Historic Places, there's a property called "Significant people" that links back to the people that are the reason for the building/site/object being in the National Register. The National Park Service doesn't have this populated for all records, but it does for a number of them. I bet it covers a good chunk of evening's use case. See for example Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum
-
"Structure" already has "owners", and "Person" already has "Places lived".
-
I've created a view for this here: http://www.freebase.com/view/user/sprocketonline/default_domain/views/people_who_lived_in_notable_houses
-
-
-
I wouldn't have thought that Earth sheltering is strictly an architectural style - I think it is more akin to a construction methodology/technique. The same goes for Passive Solar, which is a concept in Building Services engineering.
-
Also Textile block is a material choice, and skyscraper is a building type not the style (you can get Art Deco skyscrapers, Post-modern skyscrapers and Hi-Tech skyscrapers to name a few architectural styles).
-
-
-
-
The architectural styles in Freebase are variously named
My ultimate goal is to be able to map the archictural styles in the left hand column below which are used by the U.S. National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places. If a knowledgeable person would complete/correct the mapping, I'd be very grateful
National Register of Historic Places
Freebase ART DECO Art Deco BEAUX ARTS Beaux-Arts architecture BUNGALOW/CRAFTSMAN American Craftsman CHICAGO Chicago school CLASSICAL REVIVAL x COLONIAL American Colonial COLONIAL REVIVAL x EARLY COMMERCIAL
EARLY REPUBLIC x EXOTIC REVIVAL x FEDERAL Federal Architecture GEORGIAN Georgian Architecture GOTHIC Gothic architecture GOTHIC REVIVAL Gothic Revival architecture GREEK REVIVAL Greek Revival architecture INTERNATIONAL STYLE International Style ITALIAN VILLA
ITALIANATE Italianate architecture LATE 19TH AND 20TH CENTURY REVIVALS
LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20TH CENTURY AMERICAN MOVEMENTS
LATE GOTHIC REVIVAL Late Gothic Revival LATE VICTORIAN x (map to Victorian?) MID 19TH CENTURY REVIVAL
MISSION/SPANISH REVIVAL Mission Revival Style architecture MIXED (MORE THAN 2 STYLES FROM DIFFERENT PERIODS) skip MODERN MOVEMENT Modern architecture MODERNE
NO STYLE LISTED skip OCTAGON MODE x OTHER skip PRAIRIE SCHOOL x PUEBLO x QUEEN ANNE Queen Anne Style architecture RENAISSANCE Renaissance architecture ROMANESQUE Romanesque architecture SECOND EMPIRE
SHINGLE STYLE x SKYSCRAPER
STICK/EASTLAKE x TUDOR REVIVAL x-
Yuck! That looked like a table in my browser. Honest!
Imagine the upper case names are in the left column. A small 'x' means that Freebase doesn't currently have an equivalent.
-
I could still use some help on this if anyone is knowledgeable about architectural styles, but I've made some progress. Here's what I've done so far:
- added aliases to help them match to existing topics to match the forms used by the National Park Service (unless they're ambiguous like "Colonial" in which case I'll do a mapping in the upload program)
- identified some additional category topics which exhisted but weren't typed, including: Streamline Moderne, Stick-Eastlake, and a few others
- added a few new types
If someone who knows more about this stuff than I do could review the recent additions to Architectural styles I'd be grateful (and it'll improve the data quality when the actual upload is done).
-
-
-
Reiner won the project in a closed competition. His competitors were Alvor Aalto, Pier Luigi Nervi amongst others. (Kidder Smith New Architecture of Europe, Pelican Books A 518 - 1961). How can we use Freebase categories to see and classify the other designs.
-
dsinclair, I'm not sure if there is a way we can easily fill out the details of this given the data model types currently available - I have linked to the Awards and the Architecture commons discussion boards for their insight.
In the meantime I have used the closest fitting thing, I have created a new award category topic, the "Competition to design the Wiener Stadthalle" . I have listed Roland Rainer as the award winner, and the Wiener Stadthalle as his award winning work. I have also listed his competitors as award nominees. You can list their entries to the competition as award-nominated works.
Do you think there is a better way to go about modelling this?
-
Thanks
It looks like a good wayof doing it - i'll have to try with a couple more
-
-
-
How can I model the relationship between a structure (e.g. a restaurant) and its interior designer?
-
That depends on how much detail you want… I would imagine that, at a minimum, you would want a CVT with the target of the design, the designer, and the date. Is one date enough? And what’s the target of a design? A structure seems too large; business do not always occupy an entire structure. If you are primarily interested in restaurant designers, that suggests that it would be a property of restaurant locations. Prototype it in your domain, play around with it, invite others to play, and see what develops.
-
On the Structure type, Architect, Engineer and Contractor could be merged into a single CVT of contributors that would allow for a wider range of roles such as Interior Designer, Landscape Architect, Lighting Designer etc.
In the case of restaurants, it's often the case that one architectural firm will create the design for an entire franchise so you might also consider that would be modeled as well.
-
-
-
I think the "architectural contractor" table should be a mediator - not a topic. A contractor is a role, not a company. This role requires a client, a project and a contracting firm. Also, a distinction is often made between the general contractor and sub contractors - neither fo which are architectural. Thoughts?
-
similar issues exists with other properties of /architecture/structure: architectural firm, engineering firm, architect, engineer. you're right. it's not well normalized. i like your idea of a mediator/role. I think what I'd like to do is keep the properties that I currently have on /architecture/structure
- architectural firm
- contractor
- engineering firm
and have the expected type for each one be a different mediator type with a whole bunch of information about the role:
- project
- client
- firm
- start date
- end date
perhaps, in the case of the contractor role there could be someone way of "tagging" the role as one of sub or general contractor. other properties could be added as needed: list of staff members and their roles? there is some question about how much detail we really need, as with it comes schema complexity. anyhow, any other thoughts on this?
-
I have done very little schema design, and agree that it should not be unnecesarily complex. However, since freebase includes people, companies and structures, and since structrues are worked on by so many companies and people, and many of those companies and people have worked on many structures; it seems like there is some inherant complexity. I will check out your types mentioned here. Also I am working on some under my domain "project management". (very incomplete) let me know what you think.
As for general / sub contractor, maybe something similar to "parent contractor" - that links to itself, and links in as "sub-contractor", since again, it is a role, and one contractor can be both. A child (or sub) to one contractor and a parent to a differet or several different contractors.
-
I definitely see the need for another domain here. architecture should keep the buildings/structures but the details of the construction project should be spun off. It might be that construction project itself should be a standalone topic, more of an abstract one. Semantically speaking, the building is not the project, is it, right?
You might want to move this discussion to the data-modeling list (entry box is in the upper left of that page). You will definitely get a faster feedback loop going there (sorry for the long delay in responding)
-
-
-
Building function changes over time. See Hyde Park Barracks for an example -- the blurb covers most of the building uses so you can compare with what I set in the property.
Could we turn building function into a CVT with start/end dates, please? I'm using topics like the above in a personal domain about a certain period of history (convict-era Sydney) and it looks very odd from the domain POV to have all the uses there without explanation. See this view for an example
-
I agree.
I have even thought if it would be good to have a valid time range for all relations by default. For example a name of a person can change. The area of a location(city , country, ...) can change(city is growing; war). The "Contains, Contained by, Adjoins, ..." of a Location can change over time (war, ...).
IMHO, The current data scheme does not reflect the fact that everthing is in constant flow and everything is changing over time.
I know there exists facts which do not change over time. For example a parent of a person will probably always be a parent of this person. But many of the relations currently in freebase will change if time passes, not because they are wrong - because reality will change.
Just some thoughts,
Ralf
-
-
-
Archiportal is a useful way to browse freebase architecture data because it puts the data in its context: on a map. We actually have some pretty cool data in there! The following architects have something close to their complete (existing) works:
- Rudolph Schindler (New!)
- Richard Neutra
- Bernard Maybeck
- Julia Morgan
- William Wurster
- Willis Polk
- Joseph Esherick
- Ernest Coxhead
- Charles Willard Moore
-
-
-
They are definitely a structure, but in the case of Italian Renaissance in particular, Tombs had sculptural elements if not almost free-standing sculptures often executed by a second individual (who was primarily a sculptor and not an architect).
Monuments can be considered to be more of a sculpture/sculptural grouping than strictly a structure
Prime example would be the Funerary-Tombs:
The Medici Chapel by Michelango
Tomb of Antipope John XXIII
Many works within St. Peter's in Rome.
I guess they could be cotyped as sculptures...Or maybe a new type Monument/Tomb?-
Let's keep sculptures and buildings separate. I know, they're both "built things" in some sense but to be practical we've drawn a line between the two things: arts and crafts and "the built environment" (buildings, bridges, parks, towers)
So my suggestion is, if it's a sculpture within a building, create a separate topic for that thing (even if it's a bas relief that's part of a structural element of the building). If it could be argued that the thing is both a building/structure *and* a sculpture I guess you could type it as both.
as for monument/tomb, perhaps that should be a simple co-type under /architecture (i.e it should be both a structure and a monument/tomb)
/architecture/structure has several properties that impart/imply design attribution: architect, architectural firm, engineer, engineering firm (I suppose contractor, is another one)
this is pretty limiting. e.g. If I designed my own home, I might list myself as the architect of that building in freebase, but that is asserting that I'm an architect, which I'm not.
I suppose I could have a generic property "designer" but that would be a little confusing. In the end, I would rather risk having some false/fuzzy assertions made than add the complexity.
-
-
-
the ownership type:
"architect"
"structure"
"start date"
"end date"
all will be unique, so you will just create multiple ownership objects for each owner (even if 2 people owned it at the same time) The "who paid for it to be built" might sometimes be the same person as the first owner, sometimes not.
Perhaps we could call that the "developer", sometimes it's a person, sometimes it's a company. I'd like to chew on that a little.
A side note: I'm reluctant to start thinking about real estate/legal aspects of this (legal nature of the ownership, prices/fees paid, etc) as that will complicate things (people usually own properties that include land and other buildings which i don't want to model now) The focus is on the historical aspect. Let me know if I'm on the right track, here...
-
-
-
I'm planning on doing some work in fb around property and real estate data, and I have especially interested in architectural properties that are currently on the market. (see all properties by this architect that are for sale).
Kurt B. invited me in to do some prototyping in the real estate space, so before I started building in here I thought I would make some noise.
...need to go poke around and see what has been done around "things that are for sale"...-
Jack, I apologize for the late reply. We're working on a much better system for following discussion threads, I missed this one.
Do you have any ideas about how this could be modeled? Given that properties go on sale multiple times in their life time, we might want to model it such that the data reflects this history. I'd also like to look at "Owner" for /architecture/structure which currently has an expected type of /common/person but fails to capture other important details (start, end, purchase price)
I look forward to hearing from you on this. -
I think you're right that Owner should be a compound value type that includes at least start and end. Unless of course you want Owner to mean "who paid to have the structure built" in which case there's only one. That seems to be what the data shows now.
-
Then again, look at Kaufman Desert House where there is a list of owners. I think we need the CVT with start/end to clean this up.
-
So it's usually quite significant to have the initial client/owner for a noted or historically significant home/building...Maybe after architect list the client/initial owner. Then further below the owners with period of ownership.
Remodeling with associated architects-client and date would be another item of interest for later on. -
I think you're right that the initial client should be separate from the dated list of owners.
-
whoops, meant to reply, see new thread below...
-
-
-
I've added the types "Engineer" and "Engineering Firm." I boldly claim "Structure" as *the* type of the "Built Environment." :) Though some things, such as "Bridge" actually belong to another domain (Transportation) "Structure" is an "included type." All bridges are structures. It is structure that imparts the important properties of attribution: Engineer, Engineering Firm, Architect, Architectural Firm, Contractor. Basic properties such as "Address" and "Opened" and "Height" are also imparted by "Structure."
-
-
-
Both should be co-typed with "Structure". I have not filled out the schema for either of these types. "Structure" imparts the height property. Tower probably wants not much more than height. Bridge, well I'm quite sure I'm out of my league with bridges. I'm sure a bridge fanatic would have many ideas about what properties it should have (or indeed whether a mere single type is enough to cover the field)
-
Yes, bridges are "structures" but I suppose it might qualify for it's own domain. Or perhaps Architecture should be Architecture and Structural Engineering. Then what about the Construction field? Yikes! Just thinking aloud here.
-
FYI, it's not really 6am, it's 10pm and I've just deleted the "Bridge" type before anyone has a chance to use it. I realized, I should consult with a few folks about whether "Bridge" should be in a new domain rather than "Architecture." Perhaps Stuctural and Civil Engineering? Not sure.
-
-
-
Current efforts include:
Connecting existing architectural structures to the architects that designed them using the "Structures Designed" property of "Architect"
Where the design is attributed to an "Architectural Firm", creating the firm, populating the "Firm Partners" property with member architects. Structures connect to the desiging firm through the "Projects" property.
Co-typing structures with an appropriate structure type: Skyscraper, House, Building etc.
We don't currently have an agreed upon way of designating a location for a structure (connecting the location to the "Structure" type seems clear, it's a question of how to model it)
* Architects are people, too. The properties around the "Person" type greatly enhance the database. Don't you want to know all the buildings in Mexico City designed by architects of German nationality?
-
