Discussions on metapsyche
Start a New Discussion
-
-
Rather than having a single property for "exoplanets discovered" on the Astronomical Discovery type, I think this should have a single property for "astronomical objects discovered". I propose that we reciprocate the incoming property from Astronomical Discovery ("discovery site") and merge it with the exoplanets property (and therefore make all exoplanets also instances of Astronomical Discovery).
-
Cross-posting to Exoplanetology, since this change would potentially affect saved views.
-
Sounds good to me.
-
Bump. I'm opening a task to migrate the exoplanet discovery data to the astronomical discovery type. Metapsyche, this will mean that the property /schema/base/exoplanetology/exoplanet/discovery_site is no longer reciprocated. (The same assertion of discovery will still be there, but it will be handled via a property on the Astronomical Discovery type.)
If you'd like, we could refactor all the various discovery properties on Exoplanet to the corresponding Astronomical Discovery properties while we're at it.
-
Ok. Cool. Sounds good. And yes please refactor all the various discovery properties on Exoplanet to the corresponding Astronomical Discovery properties, if possible. Thanks!
-
Will do: DA-1085.
Can you add Astronomical Discovery as an included type of Exoplanet? We'll add the Discovery type to all current instances as part of the migration, but it should be an included type so all future instances will have it as well.
Also, if you have any views based on these six properties, you'll have to re-create them after the migration.
-
Done, astronomical discovery is now an included type.
-
Now that exoplanets are also instances of Astronomical Discovery, what will we do with the duplicate properties (such as Discoverer, Discovery Date, Status, etc, etc) ? Can we "merge" those properties and retain data that has been put in them so far? I don't mind recreating the views after this change. Thank you.
-
There's an open JIRA task to do exactly that data merge: DA-1085. Just needs someone to act on it :-)
-
Ok. Now that Google owns Freebase, can we ask Sergey Brin to please work on that DA-1085 ticket now?
-
:)
-
We're still playing catch-up with some of our migration tasks, but I'll bump it up the queue. Sorry for the long wait on this one!
-
Hey, no rush. I was just kidding. My html-tagged giggle didn't show up, which explains the smiley follow-up. Thank you for the reply.
-
-
-
I added you as an expert for Astronomy. Expert currently allows users to edit domain/type descriptions/help, edit the featured topic, and other (soon-to-come) abilities.
-
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Please have a look at the exoplanets I flagged for deletion, they are using the wrong naming convention. And they are causing duplicate counts on total exoplanets. WASP-6b, WASP-7b, all the way to WASP-15b needs to be deleted, because the correctly named ones already exist (ie, WASP-6 b, WASP-7 b, etc) Also OGLE-2006-BLG-109Lb needs to be deleted. Thanks!
- metapsyche
(a cloud of vapor) -
My apologies to the planet-hunters whose planets I renamed on Freebase and Wikipedia. I had no right to do that. I just tried to make a systematic way to catalog exoplanets using an open database (freebase). But it turned out to be difficult. Its just that some discoverers put a space after the star name, followed by the letter to denote the planet. While some don't put the space at all. This is prone to duplication errors as what happened to Freebase. I dont know what to do at this point.
-
-
-
Hi -- I replied to Gordon's posting about your exoplanet schema on the data modelers list. I'm copying it here, but you may want to join the list if you haven't done so already:
----
As you know I'm not into over-abstraction, but I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to factor out some of these properties into a more abstract type. Currently the astronomy domain has a type called "celestial object":
http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/astronomy/celestial_object
and Planet:
http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/astronomy/planet
Neither of these have the many useful properties you've added to exoplanet, yet both of them overlap several of the properties that you've added to exoplanet.
Celestial object, at least, seems pretty abstract. Planet, on the other hand, could be very specific -- the planets in our solar system, but it could also include moons, asteroids and exoplanets, much like the "Planet" infobox does on Wikipedia.
I'm not an astronomer, so somebody with more domain expertise would probably provide better guidance, but I think that it would make sense to have the Exoplanet pull most of its properties from Celestial object and another type which would define all of the properties for non-star celestial objects. Despite Wikipedia's precedent, I think calling this type a "planet" is probably a bad idea, given how charged that definition can be.
Does this makes sense?-
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your message. I'm also not an Astronomer nor a Data-Modeler so I appreciate any feedback from everyone. Someone from both camps or somebody in between would definitely help a lot. I also like to simplify things. So as of now, the Exoplanet type is fine for me. Having the thought in mind to someday create a 'Freebased' widget from the Exoplanet type, it's schema seems pretty simple at this point IMO and quite user-friendly and helpful for anyone wanting to get familiar with Exoplanets and learn more about it's properties. Because Exoplanetology is a very new field, modelling the data for exoplanet type would be quite a challenge, specially when trying to 'integrate' it into a very broad field such as Astronomy, (if possible at all). But thanks to Gordon's ( gmackenz) work on it that its almost coming into a stable schema. And i'm glad Freebase is here as a platform for learning more about exoplanets. Again, thank you for your input. Have a great day!
-
-
-
It would be helpful to have you delete the old exoplanety types from your private domain:
-
