Freebase: Discussion about bobbyrullo

Dam: Dam, something is wrong with the property for purpose of dam

2009-11-12T22:23:31.0008Z

Not a valid typename, may need to delete it and recreate?

{ "/api/status/error/mql/parse" : [ { "code" : "/api/status/error/mql/parse", "info" : { "id" : "/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000999ea71", "key" : "type", "tid" : "cache;cache01.p01.sjc1:8101;2009-11-12T22:17:47Z;0019;-5" }, "message" : "not a valid typename", "path" : "/base/engineering/dam/purpose_of_dam", "query" : { "/base/engineering/dam/purpose_of_dam" : [ { "error_inside" : ".", "guid" : null, "id" : null, "index" : null, "limit" : 1001, "name" : null, "optional" : true, "sort" : "index", "type" : "/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000999ea71" } ], "id" : "/en/itaipu" } } ] }

Architecture: Structural height

2009-11-12T19:28:31.0053Z

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."

Architecture: Structural height

2009-11-12T18:21:55.0038Z

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?

Organization: Dated Headquarter

2009-11-12T16:03:24.0039Z

Is there a possibility to add a date (from until) to the headquarter property?

Contents: Credited to

2009-11-12T14:20:54.0021Z

There are a few publications with more than one author. Can you please unmark the "restrict to 1 value"-field?

frankschloeffel: I'm confused

2009-11-12T11:15:13.0045Z

In general, I think the community decision is that we should delete topics like "History of X" and the like: it's better to link (for example) a book about the history of Microsoft to both the "history" and "Microsoft" topics rather than just to a "history of Microsoft" topic. That makes it much easier to search for all books about Microsoft, and you can still search for books about the history of Microsoft by requiring that both terms be present.

frankschloeffel: I'm confused

2009-11-12T10:04:54.0021Z

I agree with you that the history of sth. is not the same as the thing itself. I just rename 2 or three “history of the jews in” topics to keep the topic, because the were marked for deletion. (In general I think it is better to keep most of these “sth. of” topics, because they are at least subject of books, study fields etc.). I agree with you also the in the second point. What do you would like recommend to do with the Jewish Community topics?

Frank

Rivalry: Rename to Celebrity Rivalry

2009-11-12T08:34:08.0031Z

The purpose should be clear to any developer as the full key is /celebrities/rivalry

It's just that it might get confusing to someone entering data from the client or autocomplete, and a name change would resolve that.

Mythology: Location in Mythology

2009-11-12T08:31:10.0024Z

ed,

Thanks very much.

I did forget the most important property though, mythology! Otherwise there is no way to link Valhalla to Norse mythology.

Rivalry: Rename to Celebrity Rivalry

2009-11-12T08:30:15.0042Z

So long as its just the name that's changed rather than the key, that shouldn't cause any queries to break. I say go for it!

Battery: Schema comments

2009-11-12T08:29:42.0013Z

I've removed the included types. I'd argue that manufactured component category shouldn't be used for branded things - the category is electric car battery instead of Toyota Prius battery, or Vacuum cleaner instead of Hoover or Dyson. I'm considering having a new "manufactured component line" type for branded things like Toyota Prius Battery.

Common Dimension: Voltage

2009-11-12T08:23:37.0027Z

Thanks Chris

Business Location: Classification property for Retail Location?

2009-11-12T08:15:53.0014Z

That would work, although I'd try to avoid using the word 'type' in schema - it gets confusing when discussing schema types.

Architecture: Structural height

2009-11-12T08:10:07.0008Z

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.

Rivalry: Rename to Celebrity Rivalry

2009-11-12T01:47:10.0011Z

This sounds like a good suggestion to me. Does anyone else see a reason why this shouldn't be renamed? Are there any applications that use this type? Acre code search doesn't show any matches.

Mythology: Location in Mythology

2009-11-11T23:15:04.0020Z

Done and done!

frankschloeffel: I'm confused

2009-11-11T23:08:58.0025Z

OK, I think there are two issues here -- one is whether it's correct to repurpose "History of Jews in X" for "X Jewish Community" topics, and the other is how to model Jewish communities.

I agree with Tom that "History" topics really aren't the same -- the history of the Jews of a place is necessarily different than the religious organization that comprises or serves the Jews of that place, since communities (I'm assuming that this is similar or the same as a kehilla) might split or merge as the population changes, etc. The Jewish Community of Berlin, for example, was formed in 1671, several centuries after the first Jews arrived in Berlin. The other thing here, too, is that the WP keys will remain, and may be used by various entities for reconciliation, which might cause for some unwanted behavior (if someone was trying to assert "History of Jews in Berlin" as a book subject, say, based on a link in a Wikipedia article, but ended up with "Jewish Community of Berlin" instead because we repurposed the topic).
In general, a jurisdiction and an organization can't be the same thing. We talked about this when we created the Religious Jurisdiction type here, in which we determined that the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Francisco (a location that covers a fair chunk of California) and the organization which oversees operations within the diocese should be separate.

Business Location: Classification property for Retail Location?

2009-11-11T22:08:52.0005Z

How about "type of business location" as a name?

Business Location: Classification property for Retail Location?

2009-11-11T21:53:31.0001Z

Just came across this. I'd definitely support a business category property on business location.

It would be useful to model whether a business location operated by a company is a cafe or their offices.

Mythology: Location in Mythology

2009-11-11T21:34:28.0029Z

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!

Mythology: Location in Mythology

2009-11-11T21:25:18.0032Z

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.

Mythology: Location in Mythology

2009-11-11T19:55:54.0014Z

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

Mythology: Location in Mythology

2009-11-11T19:50:31.0039Z

Could we have a "location in mythology" type?

I'd like to type Asgard and Valhalla as such.

Thanks

Architecture: Structural height

2009-11-11T17:26:30.0052Z

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" ?

Rivalry: Rename to Celebrity Rivalry

2009-11-11T15:56:00.0070Z

This may get confused with other rivalries, such as football or college rivalries. I'd like to change the name to be clear in its purpose. (and some documentation wouldn't go amiss!)

frankschloeffel: I'm confused

2009-11-11T09:45:41.0030Z

Hi,

I think I understand what your are meaning. Maybe it makes more sense for you to type Jewish Communities as religious jurisdictions? (I think, you can type them as both “organization” and “jurisdiction”, but I also agree that this might confuse. I already gave the example of the Jewish Community in Berlin http://www.jg-berlin.org/en/about-us/organisational-structure.html) Is there a possible to change the type from religious organization to jurisdicticion by using an app?

frankschloeffel: I'm confused

2009-11-11T07:32:49.0010Z

[adding Frank so he sees this thread]

I don't think repurposing topics in this way is a good idea. It's one thing if the Wikipedia definition gradually drifts and Freebase follows along, but to take an existing topic about one thing and use it for something entirely different will just cause confusion.

If a community topic is needed, it shouled be created separately. I also don't understand the typing with Religious Organization. I would have thought that that applied to the rabbis and their heirarchy, not a collection of townfolk who go to a particular temple (or all temples).

Architecture: Structural height

2009-11-10T23:39:06.0038Z

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).

Battery: Schema comments

2009-11-10T21:43:00.0059Z

This is a tricky one, since Battery has its foot in two levels of the schema. Saying strictly that Battery is for the category would be esthetically pleasing, but would require the fairly silly state of having two "Toyota Prius Battery" topics -- one for the category and one for the manufactured component. I think the thing to do is not include either Manufactured Component or Manufactured Component Category, and just add them manually as necessary.
Sounds good.

Battery: Schema comments

2009-11-10T21:30:31.0006Z

I think they should. I''ve fixed this.
It depends. Battery has specific batteries, e.g. Toyota Prius Battery (a Manufactured Component); but it also works for more generic types of battery, e.g. Alkaline AA battery. (Manufactured Component Category). Should we assume that categories will be more prevalent than specific batteries?
Invention projects was what I was angling at, but on reflection it's unlikely that we'll have that much data on projects focusing on batteries (unlike construction projects for buildings) - so perhaps better if removed. If there is a project it can always be added manually.

Battery: Schema comments

2009-11-10T20:45:53.0037Z

Should the IEC and ANSI/NEDA properties be unique? I don't know anything about them, but this sort of data is often unique.
Instead of including Manufactured Component (which is for specific products), should Battery include Manufactured Component Category instead?
Does project focus make sense as an included type for Battery? I suppose it could, since each kind of battery must have been invented somehow.

Common Dimension: Voltage

2009-11-10T14:39:17.0011Z

Sorry; I did not read carefully. Instances of common dimension can only be added through MQL queries by domain administrators. Potential difference is now added (though the query timed out the first time!).

Common Dimension: Voltage

2009-11-10T05:52:17.0013Z

Yes, but it's not a Common dimension and not available in the drop down list in the schema editor of the client.

frankschloeffel: I'm confused

2009-11-10T01:03:46.0048Z

I'm not quite sure what to make of this topic. It was originally a Wikipedia topic called "History of the Jews in Laupheim" (which article is still in Wikipedia under that name), but has been renamed, and typed as an Organization. I guess there are two issues here. One is whether repurposing an article imported from Wikipedia such as a "History of X" or "Economy of X", etc. into a topic about the "X" part of the name is desirable, or whether new topics should be created. The other is whether this topic makes sense as a Religious Organization/Organization, which I'm not sure about.

Common Dimension: Voltage

2009-11-09T19:20:04.0026Z

I think you may have overlooked potential difference. I found that by looking up volt, and seeing what dimension it measured.

Common Dimension: Voltage

2009-11-08T14:32:43.0000Z

I'd like to add Electrical Potential Difference (aka Voltage) as a Common Dimension (unless it's there already, and I'm missing the obvious). I've been trying to model batteries, and it would be a useful dimension to have.