Discussions on Website
Start a New Discussion
-
-
I just want to make sure that I and everyone understands the correct use of those 2 properties.
I think it is in the context of "Parent website" and "Sub website", but how that works out logically, is misunderstood to me.
Just one example for the use of those, posted here in a reply, and perhaps added to the wiki would generally help me.
-
I'm pretty sure that "parent website" and "sub website" would be the more regular terms for these; I'm not sure why they're named like that. So Google.com is a website, and Google Mail (mail.google.com) is a subwebsite. That's my take, anyway, and it seems like that's largely how the data is being input. I'll rename the properties and add a description.
-
-
-
I need to accurately portray the takeover of JavaWorld electronic magazine through time. Please extend a date mediation CVT with From: and To: for the /internet/website/owner property.
Thanks, Thad
-
There's an open task for this: DA-865
-
-
-
I think it would be nice if a "subjects" property were added to this type so we specify what a website is about: for example, World of Spectrum is about the ZX Spectrum, while Connie Marshall Society is about Connie Marshall. This should maybe just be delegated from /common/topic/subject, depending on the status of that property.
-
Seems like a reasonable idea. It looks like a lot of users have been using the Web Site Category type for this purpose, which isn't really the same thing. We're going to do a bit of refactoring with subjects in the near future, as soon as the client is ready to support it, so I might hold off making this change until then. DA-1015
-
-
-
Hi Jon. I noticed you added the Company Type to the Engadget topic. Unfortunately, this is not correct - Engadget is a website owned by Weblogs Inc and is not itself a company.
I added the "founded" date to the "website launched" property. Unfortunately, Website does not a "founder" property so we can't include Rojas.
Website Type owners - Can we add a "Founder" property for cases like this? Or a way to add dates to the "Owner" property?
-
Thanks Evening. My recollection was actually that Rojas and Block co-founded engadget as a company that was purchased by Weblogs, Inc. and that was in turn purchased by AOL but I could be wrong.
I like the idea of website founders property. Perhaps we should ask the data mdeiling list.
-
Ah, good point. I just looked at archive.org and it looks like they did have an Engadget LLC company. This, however, should be a separate topic: Engadget LLC. (also typed as defunct, which I assume is correct?)
The biggest issue, however, is that website owner doesn't show the dates they owned the website. We'll need to request that :)
-
Date-mediating website owner seems like a good idea. It will involve some refactoring, though -- I'll open a ticket and run it past the mailing lists.
-
thanks, Jeff!
-
-
-
-
It would probably be helpful to have a two-way relationship indicating who developed a site/which sites a firm has developed.
I do have a bit of a vested interest here, but it seems a bit of glaring omission.
-
Hi, nevali, and welcome to Freebase :)
You could do this by co-typing with "software" I guess, which has a "developer" property. But that doesn't work in all cases. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to create a "web developer" type and have a property linking between web developers and the sites they've developed. -
Hi, and thanks (belatedly!) :)
That's exactly along the lines that I was thinking. I must confess that as a bit of a newbie, I'm not sure how something would go about being created—(I think) I know how to create a “web developer” type and add that to an objects, but I've not quite followed how that actual linkage happens. I know I can create a property on one of my own types which consists of a list of objects of a given type (i.e., a collection of “Website”s), but I've not been able to figure out how the reverse part of that happens automagically so that a “Sites developed” property (or something along those lines) appears referencing the original “Web developer” object that linked to it in the first place. Is it the case that I can do part of that (if I were to create the “Web developer” type), but it'd have to be the owner of the “Website” type that added in that mapping back the way?
Er, did that make sense? Apologies if not.
-
If you create two types A and B, and give A a property linking to B, you can then go to B, look at the schema editor, then down near the bottom you'll see "incoming properties". You just edit that to give it an appropriate name, and B will point back to A.
Hope that's clear enough. Let me know if I'm gibbering incoherently!
-
Aha, that makes perfect sense, thank you!
I can indeed see my “Website developer” property (/user/nevali/internet/website_developer) as an incoming property on the /internet/website schema.
am I right in thinking that to actually hook it together I'd need one of the admins of /internet to edit that incoming property (and, I guess preferably move /user/nevali/internet/website_developer to /internet/website_developer)?
-
That's correct. I can bring it to the attention of the appropriate people.
-
-
-
