[Data-modeling] Astronomy: Celestial Object modeling on Sandbox(Orbit & Discovery)

[Danny Hillis]

I like it. My one concern is about Natural Satellite, since Orbital  
Order does not make sense for many natural satellites. Consider  
astroids and comets for example. As far I know, it only makes sense  
for moons and planets. SInce these are already types, I would suggest  
putting the property on those. That would also allow more transparent  
property name, like Planet Number and Moon Number.
-Danny

On May 10, 2008, at 12:36 AM, Gordon Mackenzie wrote:

> So in the midst of furious testing I cobbled together my exploration  
> of adding discovery information and orbital information to the  
> Celestial Object type (partially robbing the cradle of Exoplanet):
>
> http://sandbox.freebase.com/tools/schema/astronomy/celestial_object
>
> First example is Phobos:
>
> http://sandbox.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f80000000000672d0
>
> I know it could get quite more detailed with even more properties  
> for the orbital CVT but it may be that there is too much  
> already...We do link to the Wikipedia article that has a quite  
> explicit info box (and we aren't out to replace/fully replicate WP  
> either).
>
> I think I am leaning towards having the specific Mass/Radius/Gravity/ 
> Temp information for the more specific object types of Star, Planet,  
> Dwarf Planet, Natural Satellite, Asteroid, and Comet. An example is  
> the size-appropriate use of various Mass and Radius ratios against a  
> particular solar system body; Stars mostly use M(solar), Jovian- 
> sized objects use M(jupiter), and rocky objects often use M(earth).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20080510/4a550f41/attachment.htm