Discussions on Application Developer Tips
Start a New Discussion
-
-
Hi all, thank you for checking out this post. I am a new user to Freebase and I need some assistence.
I am tasked with a project of obtaining information for dog breeds. Typing into the search box for dog breeds I get a nice relational tabled representation of the data with the name and breed group. Clicking on one of the dog names itself gives me a little further information such as it's height and temperment.
Although if I search for Hypoallergenic Dogs, that base exposes other information immediately, such as their height.
What it comes down to is I need a way to pull this set of criteria (although it seems that Freebase does not have some of this data yet):
dog name, most popular by city, size, excercise needs, temperment, coat length, group, life span, energy level, hypo allergenic, family friendly and apartment friendly.
I've also noticed from runing some of the example queries from the help area, that data comes out as a hierarchical model rather than a relational model used by SQL or Excel. Is there a way to convert this into a kind of tabled form such as if you were to use the search bar on the top right?
Thank you in advance.
-
Create the table that you want with the right filters and right columns displayed, then click on the little gear icon on the top and select "Download as a file."
Don't forget that the Terms of Service require attribution back to Metaweb/Freebase.
Not sure what you mean about the heirarchical vs relational, but the database isn't either really. If you're talking about the information displayed on a topic page in Label: Value form, you can get all that to come out in table views as well with the appropriate amount fiddling about the the table settings (click Edit View and add additional types/columns).
For data that's missing, feel free to add it if you've got a good source that's license compatible.
-
-
-
Is this example up to date with the current software? I got the namespace created after removing the outer query label from the example query, but no matter what I do, I can't seem to convince the property editor to allow me to choose the system "enumeration" type as topic to be linked to.
What am I missing?
-
Hmmm, try typing in the key for the enumeration type in "Link to topic". The key is /type/enumeration . Make sure that once you do that, you follow the rest of the instructions and link the property to the namespace, or you'll get an error later when trying to view the type.
-
Does that work for you? It didn't for me.
I ended up struggling through the explore2 view and raw MQL to create what I needed.
-
Well, I'll be... it didn't work for me either, but it used to. I've filed a bug regarding this.
-
Thanks.
p.s. The topic should, of course, be "Out of date." That's what happens when you stare at MQL for too long!
-
Here's the bug for tracking purposes: CLI-7473
-
As that bug seems somewhat moribund, it may be worth noting I got this to work by creating the property as an integer, then setting the expected_type to /type/enumeration via the Query Editor, then following the instructions here again.
-
It should also be possible to update the ect via the admin view of the property.
-
-
-
The last part of these directions is jumbled and missing some steps.
Steps #3 through the end can be replaced with the following:
3. Edit the Foreign Key Property property named URI Template and
type the name of your newly created template and select it,
then click Save.
4. Click the name of your URI template to view its topic.
5. Add the type URI Template to your topic.
You'll see it comes with three new properties which are for the following:
URI property - ??
Recognized Template - ??
Template - the template that will be used to generate links
6. Edit the Template property, and enter the URI that you want to
appear for your topics using {key} where your enumeration key should
appear. For example:
http://www.someURL.com/{key}
-
-
-
It would be interesting to see some examples of speedups. I imagine most web apps calling mqlread have significant network overheads.
-
-
