[Data-modeling] Astronomy: CelestialObjects andNaturalSatellites

[Danny Hillis]

Perhaps we are each confused about what the other is proposing. I  
agree that we should avoid the opportunity to add data to properties  
that are not relevant. Can you mock up how you propose to handle  
synchronous and  asynchronous satellites? I would like to understand  
how you propose handling  "latitude"  (which is only relevant to  
synchronous) and "ground repeat time" (which is only relevant to  
asynchronous).
-Danny

On May 3, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Ed Laurent wrote:

> Hmm. I guess it comes down to differences in modeling styles. I'm  
> reluctant to allow users the opportunity to add data to properties  
> that are not relevant to the topics they are typed to, even if it  
> would be rare and in error.
>
> -Ed
>
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Danny Hillis  
> <danny at appliedminds.com> wrote:
> I would be happy to put these properties on a type called
> Geosynchronous Satellite,  I just think Earth Orbiting is the wrong
> concept to tie it to.
> -Danny
>
>
> On May 3, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Ed Laurent wrote:
>
> >
> > > Earth orbiting satellites will get their own special properties  
> like
> > > latitude or local time crossing the equator and that will be
> > > dependent on a co-type that will probably be dependent on their  
> type
> > > of orbit. I haven't gotten to that point yet.
> >
> > But these properties are not really connected the fact that the
> > satellite is an Earth Orbiting Satellite. Many Earth Earth Orbiting
> > Satellites do not have them, and satellites in synchronous orbit
> > around other planets do have them.
> >
> > Maybe latitude was a bad example.  LatLong might be a system that
> > can be used for any sphere. I don't know. However, "local time
> > crossing the equator" (e.g., Landsat 7 is around 10:30 am) is
> > probably unique to geosynchronous Earth orbiting satellites. There
> > are probably similar properties of geostationary Earth orbiting
> > satellites that have cultural or similar relevance that would be
> > unique to the planet we live on. Some of those properties might be
> > the same for geosynchronous and geostationary satellites and could
> > therefore reside on a more generic Earth orbiting satellite type.
> > That would also permit the differentiation of Earth orbiting and  
> non-
> > Earth orbiting geosynchronous satellites without needed to build
> > mostly redundant models.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Data-modeling mailing list
> > Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling