spatialed

spatialed: Properties co-typed as other types

2008-07-01T15:34:09.0005Z

Thanks, Ed.
I think Physiognomy and Satellite sensor status (the properties) should be separate, discrete objects than Physiognomy and Satellite sensor status (the topic and LC) and not conflated. You do have a separate Physiognomy type (http://www.freebase.com/tools/schema/user/spatialed/land_cover/physiognomy) - should that have included types of topic and LC?

spatialed: Properties co-typed as other types

2008-07-01T04:09:05.0012Z

Sure but they were purposeful typings. LC is a bucket type I created for all types that have something to do with land cover mapping even if they are best placed in another domain. They are usually topics too. No problem if you want to detype them. I've put that project on the shelf for a little bit and know how to pick it back up later.

spatialed: Properties co-typed as other types

2008-06-30T16:41:39.0012Z

Hi Ed,

I've noticed that you have 2 properties, Physiognomy and Satellite sensor status cotyped as LC and Topic. I'm guessing this might have been an errant mistyping due to autocomplete. I'd like to detype them - is that ok?

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-25T15:19:54.0018Z

Sorry I haven't had a chance to follow up. I've been on vacation. Lots of ideas, no time. I hope to follow up sometime next week.

http://blog.freebase.com/2008/06/19/data-mob-motorcycles/: Delete

2008-06-23T20:28:59.0012Z

Thanks Phil. I tried adding a link to the motorcycle data mob blog but autocomplete was acting weird. It only showed a couple topics no matter what I typed. Also, the link function wasn't working in the html editor. I've had several issues using Freebase since I switched to FF3 so maybe these are a few more. I've narrowed down some of the problems to using the NoScript FF3 add-in to block google analytics but I allowed those scripts and still had problems.

http://blog.freebase.com/2008/06/19/data-mob-motorcycles/: Delete

2008-06-23T19:00:06.0000Z

Ed, I'm working on documentation for the new Domain page functionality, as well as a new version of the Help center, both of which I hope to have live after I return from vacation next week. As I currently understand it, the News Article can be any kind of news about the domain that you want to add. If you create a new News Article topic for you domain, it takes you to an HTML editor view of the topic. Since the Add New News Article functionality is the same as for any other new topic, autocomplete will suggest topics within Freebase you can link to; otherwise, you need to use the HTML link function in the new topic to create a link to a topic outside Freebase. I will be looking into this more in the next few days, so if I discover a different solution I'll let you know.

http://blog.freebase.com/2008/06/19/data-mob-motorcycles/: Delete

2008-06-22T19:44:53.0005Z

Deleate and please add documentation for the Domain page News Release on the ? button. "Add news release" is not very helpful. Is this only for new news articles? How do you link directly to an existing webpage?

Motorcycle search returns nonsense domain blob: Partially fixed

2008-06-17T22:55:28.0000Z

Thanks Dan!

Motorcycle search returns nonsense domain blob: Partially fixed

2008-06-17T22:33:57.0012Z

The preview blurb now behaves properly. Tuning the ordering of relevance results in search autocomplete is a delicate proposition... we're definitely looking into ways to make domains and types move up in results.

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-12T07:00:03.0000Z

I changed the name of the "Organism observed" property to "Taxonomic concept". I also added a "Taxon description or key" property that is expected to be a written_work. We may be able to eventually drop this new property after organism_classification is linked to its published description(s).

Based on our discsussion, "Taxonomic concept" is probably a more appropriate property name than both "Observed organism" and "Observed organism classification". The name of this type, "Organism observation", is still probably appropriate.

To summarize the schema: The naturalist observed, at a specified location, an organism or part of an organism such as a fruiting body (not an organism classification) and then labled that organism on a specified date as a taxonomic concept based on a description or key that was usually written and published.

Do these modifications improve the utility of the type for you?

Should I add a Person property so that entries can be added for non-users? This would add denormalization between user and person but I can't think of a way to avoid that except by dropping the user name property. Some users may object to giving their names so that might not be a good strategy.

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-12T05:35:28.0007Z

A lot of the data in VegBank was collected through the Carolina Vegetation Survey "pulses". There is usually at least one and sometimes two pulses per year. A CVS pulse is organized by a small group of plant experts. The organizers rent a house or campground for a week and send out a request for volunteers. Everyone is welcome and over fifty volunteers typically show up for at least a day. The organizers and "honchos" (typically graduate students who are good botanists) lead crews of volunteers to sample various plant communities using standard protocols. I've volunteered two days each of the past three years. It's a lot of fun.

After a full day of "botanizing", the crews have a late dinner and then spend a couple hours with lenses, microscopes and published taxonomic keys to identify anything they couldn't ID in the field. The toughies and remainders are pressed each night and later identified by graduate students and botanists at herbariums.

I don't think anyone ever notes which key is used. My impression is that each person uses whichever key is most familiar and/or most recent at that date (or the one they authored!). This is probably a failure of most people and programs and it is good for you to call attention to it. I agree with you that the reference should either be explicitly referenced within the record or as part of the sampling protocol .

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-12T05:22:11.0007Z

Riffing off your post from yesterday, I don't quite understand how your suggestion about using a date field works. What I want to be able to do is see for a given observation what names have been applied to it by whom, when they were applied, and why that person thinks this is the correct name. In my own site I allow other users to vote on the names so over time you develop a consensus.

The concern I have with a "Revised oragnism observation" is that it seems to assume a strict discrete linear ordering to the namings. As the VegBank example shows the scientific consensus process can take years to settle out. But perhaps I don't really understand your suggestion. It seems like we need some concrete examples.

What you observed about the old names being useful data for misidentification is correct and we use it for exactly that purpose on Mushroom Observer.

I haven't gotten my head around CVT's yet. I'll have to try creating some types in my sandbox to get a feel for it, but I'll take your word for it.

Your Classification code type is interesting. I can see how it works well for what you're describing, but I don't see the same value for the "Overlaps" concept in a taxonomic DAG. In my, you can't know a prior that two taxa overlap. It is just a side effect of each them containing overlapping children. However, the general concept seems very similar.

I would definitely be interested in exploring confidence ranking ideas. What's the best forum to do that in? I'm also interested in taking this conversation to the data modeling list. I've been lurking there for the last week or so to get a feel for the way the discussion goes. It's also been really helpful having a chance to discuss it more in depth with just one other voice. Thanks for the time you've put in!

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-12T04:57:46.0000Z

Thanks for the VegBank reference. I hadn't heard the term "concept-base taxonomy", but it makes a great deal of sense to me. I haven't quite figured out how they actually deal with cases where the observer has a scientific name and either doesn't know or doesn't record the original reference. I haven't been able to actually access the database.

The common case where this comes up are people who have learned or been given latin names through essentially oral tradition. As the VegBank discussion points out, you can generally find the original publication for a particular name and get that author, but you don't really know if that's the concept you are working with or not. In some cases it may actually not be possible (yet) to efficiently track down any solid concept for a name. However, even if that's possible, people often don't bother to be that precise. In my opinion, you need as best as possible to actually describe what information people are using to make an id. Thus a naming should carry with it as much detail as the user is willing to provide. This can include a specific reference to a concept as well as notes indiciating the specific features that were used to make the determination.

Motorcycle part number (manufacturer ): Link to Consumer product?

2008-06-11T20:38:15.0018Z

I bit the bullet and co-typed consumer_product. Seems there's a couple benefits and no real harm.

Motorcycle part number (manufacturer ): Link to Consumer product?

2008-06-11T19:32:46.0000Z

Ah, I see. That's definitely more complex than the consumer_product retailer links. About the only thing that you would really gain by including consumer_product is the ability to have non-blog or -forum reviews (are there webzines that review motorcycle parts?), so maybe you don't really need the co-type, unless you want the "is-a" assertion.

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-11T18:14:06.0000Z

I just remembered that the creators of VegBank have given the integration of multiple taxon concepts quite a bit of thought. Check out their webpage that describes VegBank's included databases. In particular, see VegPlants.

Motorcycle part number (manufacturer ): Link to Consumer product?

2008-06-11T06:10:54.0000Z

Consumer_product has a link for purchase links. My approach was to make these links through Motorcycle_part_number_(retailer), which is often different than the manufacturers number. This approach allows users to look up and cross-reference manufacturer and retailer numbers AND give retailers a place to advertise without sullying the actual product page (i.e., spam). Co-typing with consumer_product wouldn't be that big of a problem but it does add some redundancy. I've also started subdividing "reviews" into separate blog and forum links. Perhaps this is overkill, but I bet a lot of this info could be scraped, and the subdivisions are informative.

Motorcycle part number (manufacturer ): Link to Consumer product?

2008-06-10T18:36:13.0007Z

My understanding of the type (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the instances of "motorcycle part number" are themselves the things you buy. The short description seems more generic, and often seems to describe a class of part, rather than a specific part. If that's right, then "consumer product" should just be a co-type. I don't see any duplication of properties between "consumer product" and "motorcycle part number", so I wouldn't expect that you would need to do any refactoring.

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-10T06:39:15.0007Z

Wouldn't the date field handle most of your concerns about dynamic namings? For example, I may want to summarize J.J. Audubon's initial bird species observations and classifications. Many of those have changed. By linking the date of the observation, the name at that time is maintained and can eventually be linked to the current taxon definition(s) given future taxonomic crosswalks (i.e., links between synonyms and reasons for the links). It may be useful to link the classification system explicitly, but this is already done indirectly through the organism classification (i.e., currently every taxon is identified based on the ITIS classification system). I'm fine with that as long as Freebase will accept multiple taxonomies.

A "Revised organism observation" type could be modeled to track changes in taxon identification due to literature and picture reviews by the observer and others. There could be utility in tracking these changes in organism identification. For example, which species are most commonly misidentified?

One of the annoying constraints of Freebase is an inability to nest CVTs. This limitation has some implications for your proposed amendments to the types.

Regarding multiple higher classifications, I think this screams for the need for multiple taxonomic classification systems that are linked at every node (i.e., crosswalks). For an example, check out my Classification_code type for land cover classification systems. An attributed topic is Woody wetlands.

Regarding confidence rankings... cool. I would be happy to help you refine it. One of my colleagues is a social scientist who may be able to provide some guidance. Someone else will need to chime in on whether something like this already exists in Freebase and answer your question about reasons for priority of image display.

Something to consider is that you might get more feedback by posting these questions to the data modeling list.

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-10T05:38:46.0000Z

Interesting discussion in the meta-contributors list. Seems like the Mushroom Observer observations would be reasonable then. However, to me this argues even more strongly for separating the naming from the observation. The facts of the observation are known for sure. The namings are a matter of opinion and can shift over time both due to new eyes looking at the observation and from changes in the literature.

For example, the observation you've labelled Amanita muscaria is currently accurate, but it is expected to change in the not too distant future (perhaps this year) due to new DNA studies on the various species of red capped Amanitas. Ideally your observation would get the new name applied to it once it is published and some determines which one you found, but your old naming would remain for the purpose of search.

It might be reasonable in Freebase to handle this by making the 'Observer organism' field allowing multiple values. However, I'd want to associate a naming with a particular person since different people have different levels of authority with respect to a given group. Also having the date of the naming is useful as is the ability to indicate which naming is currently considered the most appropriate.

Regarding the Organism Classification type, it's better than some I've seen but doesn't have as much data as I'd like. In particular, I would like to see the Synonym scientific name reflect back to other Organism Classifications in some way and an option for multiple Higher Classifications.

Regarding synonyms, I've found that treating the concept of a taxon as distinct from a name is really useful. Names are the strings published in a book (e.g., Amanita muscaria (L. : Fr.) Lam.). Taxa are the actual organisms that a Name is applied to. In a database, a taxon essentially ends up being a list of names with a subset being marked as 'valid'. Most often that subset only has one member, but there are cases of long standing debate where a shared collaborative space should really allow both opinions to stand on equal footing.

Regarding multiple higher classifications, as much as people like to think of the current taxonomic relationships as a tree, it is really a directed acyclic graph. Especially when you get into things like plant hybrids and even more extreme genetic engineering, the tree metaphor breaks down. It is also fundamentally based on a clear concept of species which simple doesn't exist in some groups. Even without explicit examples of such violations, the current state of knowledge is incomplete and any presentation of the data as a tree necessarily follows a particular opinion which may be under significant debate. Interestingly, a DAG option is already available for the more abstract Organism Classification Rank, but the data and the images definitely need some work.

Regarding confidence ranking systems, I've come up with something on Mushroom Observer that's doing a reasonable job, but I'm not completely happy with it. It is also related to ideas like quality and interestingness that I haven't had a chance to really focus on yet. Is there anything along those lines that you've come across in Freebase? How does it decide which image to show in cases where multiple images are provided?

Motorcycle part number (manufacturer ): Link to Consumer product?

2008-06-10T04:28:42.0000Z

Do you think it should be a co-type or linked in as the "Short description" property? The former will require additional refactoring here and on other types. I also like my properties better than those on Consumer_product (of course!). :)

Motorcycle part number (manufacturer ): Link to Consumer product?

2008-06-09T17:59:23.0007Z

I think it would make perfect sense to include "consumer product" on this type. If you want to retroactively add "consumer product" to all the existing instances of "motorcycle part number", let me know -- we should be able to do that pretty easily.

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-09T07:03:55.0001Z

I posted a somewhat similar question in meta-contributors. IMO individual observations are useful if they are placed within a well defined spatial and temporal context. That allows users to lump observations in various ways to describe other things (e.g., what is the diversity of bird species in Umstead Park?). To me, the semantic web is useful for what users can collaboratively put into it as well as what they can individually pull out of it.

I modeled Organism_observation as a compound value type (CVT). This type is essentially a container for a list of grouped topics. I've linked this type as a property of Naturalist's observations, which can include topics like "velosa's fungi life list". See "Spatial Ed's mushroom observations".

I named the property linked to Organism_observation as "Observed organism". My use of the word organism was somewhat keeping in line with Freebase terminology. If I wanted to be completely consistent I would have named it "Observed organism classification" but that seemed more confusing. Organism in Freebase actually refers to individual organisms (e.g., Seabiscuit).

I think Organism_classification is founded solely on ITIS taxonomy definitions. I've made several suggestions for allowing users to crosswalk the ITIS classification scheme to other taxonomic systems. No luck yet but I think it is just a matter of time.

Observer confidence is something I thought about adding as a property linked to an enumerated type (i.e., list) but I didn't have a confidence ranking system to use so I didn't addone. Feel free to do so. I would add it as another property of the Organism_observation CVT. Make sure to check the boxes for disambiguation and single value.

User name is linked once to all observations as a property of topics of the Naturalist's_observation type.

"Unknown" or "Unknown fungi" or "Unknown Cantharellus", etc. can be added in as the observed taxon in the list of observations in the Naturalist'_observation type if users are not sure of the species.

Organism observation: Are observations right for freebase?

2008-06-09T05:31:26.0012Z

This is my first question, since a single observation is a far smaller (and therefore even more plentiful) unit of knowledge than a taxon. It is also generally a personal event rather than a group topic that can be improved by many users over time. However, assuming that it is, I would describe it a bit differently from what you have at the moment.

First, the property 'Observation' should be something like 'Life Lists' or 'Species Lists'. Second, I would not associate it directly with an 'Observer organism'. Rather I would associate it with a set of 'Namings'. A Naming in turn is associated with a Oragnism Classification (or what I would call a taxon) and would have a confidence and the name of the person proposing the given name.

The big advantage of this extra layer of indirection is it allows unknowns to be observered and it deals with the evolution of taxonomic naming over time.

I could also get into what I think a taxon should be, but I need to do my homework on Organism Classification and see if I like it or not.

-Nathan

Motorcycle part number (manufacturer ): Link to Consumer product?

2008-06-08T10:11:27.0012Z

I created this type as a way to cross reference motorcycle parts with their use on various levels of motorcycle descriptions (e.g., model year, body style). One of the properties is "Short description", which I've set as text. However, this short description is really a name that people typically call the part unless they need to order it. I'm wondering if it would be better to link this property to the Consumer_product type. This refactoring might help advance the Consumer_product type's schema development too. Thoughts?

spatialed: Cyclical included types

2008-04-17T03:03:35.0000Z

Good catch. Thanks. I was still figuring out how to work with Included types when I created those schema. They probably still need some work but I removed the cyclical relationships. Let me know if you see any other problems. I plan to get back to these schema and start adding a lot more data for them May-June.

spatialed: Cyclical included types

2008-04-16T20:00:49.0007Z

you have a cyclical relationship:

http://freebase.com/view/schema/user/spatialed/default_domain/satellite_image_product

i click on the first included type "Land cover classification system" of "Satellite Image Product"

http://freebase.com/view/schema/user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover_classification_system

and "Land cover classification system" has as its first included type "Satellite Image Product"

spatialed: Cyclical included types

2008-04-16T18:30:13.0000Z

i'm seeing a cyclical relationship in:

http://freebase.com/view/schema/user/spatialed/default_domain/satellite_image_product

a satellite image product has itself as an included type.

is this an error?

spatialed: Deprecated /book types

2008-03-19T01:24:47.0000Z

Thanks Bryan for the heads up and nudge that it affected me. I used reviewer only because it seemed to fit best but I didn't really like it. I think I'll switch to Author but the way that type is described it may not be appropriate either...

spatialed: Deprecated /book types

2008-03-18T22:57:10.0005Z

Hi Ed,

I know you subscribe to the data-model list, but I wanted to let you know that I noticed that your type /motorcycle/motorcycle_product_review has a property that expects one of the types listed in the email. You can review the email here.

spatialed: Units of moment of force

2008-02-18T21:37:45.0007Z

You should be able to add inch-pounds. Add a new instance of Unit of Moment of Force and give it a name. You must also give it a “Dimension” (Torque) and a “Canonical Abbreviation” (in-lb?) in order to be able to use it with a property definition. An equivalence in Newton-meters is also encouraged (0.112984829, I believe).

spatialed: Units of moment of force

2008-02-17T04:44:21.0000Z

Oops. I meant to add inch-pounds and went with an existing topic I mistakenly thought was synonomous. Similarly, I mistakenly thought that kilograms per cubic meter was a metric equivalent. Inch-pounds does need to be included though.

spatialed: Units of moment of force

2008-02-16T02:18:53.0007Z

Torque is usually measured in force × distance: foot-pounds, Newton-meters (the SI unit). This can be decomposed to mass × area ÷ time-squared; I have never heard of torque measured in units of density (mass ÷ volume, kg/m³) or pressure (force ÷ area, psi). Where are you seeing torque measured in these units? It may be a field-specific jargonistic
use of the term, but it’s not one I’ve heard before.

spatialed: Units of moment of force

2008-02-16T00:35:01.0007Z

Ok. Why are they odd? I added them because torque is commonly measured in terms of pounds per square inch or kilograms per cubic meter. How should I enter torque data?

spatialed: Units of moment of force

2008-02-13T22:18:34.0005Z

Ed, there were a couple of odd topics that were typed by you as units of moment of force (kilograms per cubic meter and pounds per square inch). I have de-typed them, but you may want to check if you had any properties using them as units. Please double-check them.

Motorcycle: Motorcycle MPG?

2008-02-05T21:03:22.0007Z

I definitely agree with the K.I.S.S. approach - the easier the better. The current automotive concepts are at a higher level, such as 2007 Honda Accord, with the variances inside the concept (body styles, engines, transmissions, etc.). If the automotive concepts were more disambiguated in the display name like the motorcycyle domain (ex. 2007 Honda Accord 4-Door EX V6), then we could simplify the US Fuel Economy property and remove redundancies. We tried to account for most of the variances in US fuel economy without breaking the model (too much). Eventually, model year might grow out of its britches and require a refactoring.

Motorcycle: Motorcycle MPG?

2008-02-05T20:40:08.0000Z

Thanks Bryan. Your unit type of Unit of Fuel Economy will be very useful for simplifying my Fuel consumption type. Currently I just use an undefined float for two properties: Miles per gallon and Liters per 100 km.

My approach has been to keep this type as simple as possible so that it can be added as a property anywhere in the motorcycle grouping hierarchy. In other words, I do not include engine, transmission, model, etc. because it would overlap with existing attributes. For example, the motorcycle's fuel consumption type can be included as a property for models, body styles, and privately owned examples without worry of redundant attribution. It is also relevant everywhere in the world. Your US Fuel Economy type contains more detailed attributes that could cause problems with redundancies down the road (no pun intended).

Motorcycle: Motorcycle MPG?

2008-02-05T19:30:55.0012Z

Hi Ed,

This might be of interest to you for the motorcycle domain. We created a new type US Fuel Economy for the automotive domain, which uses the measurement unit type Unit of Fuel Economy. There are more factors that can affect fuel economy (different seating configurations and such) but we started simple with taking into account body style, engine, and transmission.

Empty properties not visible in standard view: Empty properties not visible in standard view

2008-01-30T06:54:24.0007Z

I figured out that the Hide Empty Fields was selected even though I didn't set it that way. Could the default be "Show all fields"? It's confusing when you can't see all the available options.

Motorcycle model: 2004 DR 200 SE

2008-01-30T05:38:17.0007Z

Thanks for sharing! The way the Motorcycle domain is set up here on Freebase, 2004 Suzuki DR 200 SE is a Motorcycle body style. I created a topic page for 2004 Suzuki DR 200 SE there and encourage you to paste this information in that topic's description property. Feel free to fill in more information about this bike in general and add a description of your own bike through the Privately owned motorcycle type. Here's an example: SHORT BUS ONE

For more information about how to add motorcycle data (and how to use Freebase in general), check out the Motorcycle domain page. Welcome!

Motorcycle model: 2004 DR 200 SE

2008-01-30T02:20:29.0005Z

I really like the 2004 DR 200 SE for riding forest service roads and trails. It's a dependable starter bike that most people can easily learn to ride if they wanted a bike to learn on. It sits fairly low to the ground so shorter individuals will have less of a problem mounting the bike. I actually bought the 2004 DR 200 SE for my wife so that she could learn how to ride and take her motorcycle test. I have my own 2000 DR 200 SE that I ride on the forest roads and around town since it's licensed and street legal. If your looking for a basic, simple, dependable street legal enduro, I'd highly recommend one.

Empty properties not visible in standard view: Empty properties not visible in standard view

2008-01-30T01:24:57.0012Z

Not sure why but I can't view empty properties in the standard UI right now. I can turn them on and off in the experimental view but it has no effect on their visibility in the standard view. Refreshing the cache makes no difference either.

Motorcycle: Motorcycle domain is coming together!

2008-01-27T04:04:09.0012Z

I've done some major refactoring over the past couple weeks in order to reciprocate just about anything that can be reciprocated. I'll keep adding types and properties as they are identified but right now I'd like to get some feedback on the exisiting schema. Come on in, check the place out, and let me know what you think!

Sherrie E. Emerine: excellent resource

2008-01-16T15:42:26.0005Z

I have known Sherrie Emerine almost her entire life and I can state without hesitation that she is pretty ok. She seems to be improving with age, like wine. You may say cheese. That would be appropriate too. I don't know why anyone would want to have discussions about her on freebase though. Did you hear she graduated magna cum laude?

spatialed: Cyclical included types

2008-01-14T23:30:56.0000Z

Where do you see land cover as an included type of classification system? I don't see land cover (or any other types) as an included type of classification system. However, classification system is an included type of land cover. The name is actually "Land cover classification system" to identify it as a subset of "Classification system". I've changed the type key to reflect this nestedness. The new address is /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover_classification_system

If there is a cyclic relationship somewhere let me know and I will change it because it would be an error.

spatialed: Cyclical included types

2008-01-12T00:53:11.0018Z

the type /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover has as an included type /user/spatialed/default_domain/classification_system.

but /user/spatialed/default_domain/classification_system has /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover as an included type too,

creating a cyclic included types relationship. is this an error?

spatialed: Cyclical included types

2008-01-12T00:53:11.0005Z

the type /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover has as an included type /user/spatialed/default_domain/classification_system.

but /user/spatialed/default_domain/classification_system has /user/spatialed/default_domain/land_cover as an included type too,

creating a cyclic included types relationship. is this an error?

Land cover class: Type/Topic equivalent

2007-12-28T04:36:52.0005Z

I created the Land cover class topic, listed it as a Type/Domain equivalent type, and then tried to create the same named type though the Equivalent Type property. Now I apparently have two topic pages of the same name instead of a topic and a type. I've run into a similar problem before. It seems that there are multiple ways to create types with some resulting in a type, some resulting in a type and a topic and others that result only in a topic. I'm probably doing something wrong, but it seems that there should only be one kind of output for a new type - either it has an associated topic or it doesn't and it should always be a type instead of a topic. I could get around this problem by creating types the same way every time, but if I'm having this problem then others will likely run into it too.