[Data-modeling] Families

[Jeff Prucher]

Thanks for your comments. I really should have re-read the type description
before sending out the email.  I think "notable" is the better term. I'm not
really trying to define (or re-define) what should go in the type, just
trying to make it a bit more useful. 

Don't worry about the flag on sandbox -- the data on sandbox is overwritten
with a fresh copy of the production data every week, so it will go away on
its own.  

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com 
> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Tom Morris
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:25 AM
> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Families
> 
> The additions seem like improvements, but don't you need some 
> type of frame of reference for your "prominence" (even 
> acknowledging its subjectivity)?  The Gambinos and the 
> Windsors are prominent in very different ways and contexts.  
> And as for the "Cox Family" which is currently included in 
> the type, well, hmmm, don't really know what to say about them...
> 
> You might want to clarify in the description of the type 
> whether "notable" is enough, as it currently says, or if they 
> really must be "prominent" (at least in some context).  The 
> latter seems like a higher bar, while the former could be met 
> just by the fact that someone took enough note to make a 
> Wikipedia/Freebase entry.
> 
> BTW, you can ignore the deletion flag for the "Driscoll 
> Lineage" in the sandbox, it was meant for the production 
> database.  (Why does it allow that anyway?)
> 
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>