[Data-modeling] Are Influence Nodes necessarily persons?

[Robert Cook]

I like the idea of loosening the semantics of the influence system so  
it includes non-people, but Jeff's point that it will break code is a  
good one.  I also agree that the single type model is correct  
(including the CVT for peering.)

It seems we should leave it all alone for now.

R

On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Jeff Prucher wrote:

> I wasn't actually proposing making Peer a type, so you can't second  
> it!  I
> was raising it as an objection to deleting Influence Node because  
> we'd be
> replacing one type with three.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Faye Harris
>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:31 PM
>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Are Influence Nodes necessarily persons?
>>
>> Ah yes, "Peer" -- I'd second it as a type. I knew I was
>> forgetting something.
>>
>> And yes, breaking James's application on who influenced whom
>> would be a concern. It's unfortunate. But I do feel that this
>> would constitute a necessary move in the right direction.
>> Data on influence between two persons would be an easily
>> query-able subset of data on influence between any two topics
>> of arbitrary type.
>>
>> The resulting ability in the new schema to model influence
>> between any two instances would be a clear gain.
>>
>> -- Faye
>>
>>
>> Jeff Prucher wrote:
>>> I think the phylogeny pattern fits this type of data better than a
>>> two-type system. Because influence is a chain (X influence Y who
>>> influenced Z), a phylogeny is a lot cleaner; otherwise Y
>> needs to be
>>> both an influencee and an influencer, which seems unnecessarily
>>> complicated.  Influence node also has the Peers property,
>> which would
>>> presumably have to be handled by another type (Peer?), if
>> we get rid of the Influence Node type.
>>>
>>> As regards person vs. other influencable thing, I don't
>> have a strong
>>> opinion, but I do want to note that there are applications that use
>>> this model which may be affected by changing the usage.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>>>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of
>> Faye Harris
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:59 PM
>>>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
>>>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Are Influence Nodes
>> necessarily persons?
>>>>
>>>> I've actually given this some thought recently, hence the
>> relatively
>>>> quick response. :)
>>>>
>>>> As data models go, "Influence Node" is sort of an odd ball.
>>>> It doesn't tell you immediately if an instance is an
>> "influencer" or
>>>> "influencee"
>>>> (pardon the coinage), just that it has data related to influence.
>>>> Normally, types in Freebase model an "Is-A" relationship. San
>>>> Francisco "Is-A" location, and we apply the "Location" type to the
>>>> topic for San Francisco to represent that relationship.
>>>>
>>>> So a comparable schema for influence would ideally have separate
>>>> "Influencer" and "Influencee" (or "Influenced", or whatever name)
>>>> types, applied to topics where... well, applicable. As a
>> generalized
>>>> concept the included type of "Person" is rather unnecessary.
>>>> Influence may be between two things of the same type, or
>> any type, or
>>>> between things of different types. A film can influence an
>> author, a
>>>> philosophy can influence an art movement, etc.
>>>>
>>>> If asked between 1) remodeling the current "Influence Node"
>>>> type to two separate types without "Person" as an included
>> type, and
>>>> 2) creating a new pair of types to duplicate the same influence
>>>> relationship without "Person" as an included type, I'd choose the
>>>> former. It'd take a little reshuffling, but I think it'd be a lot
>>>> less confusing in the long run, than having two sets of similar
>>>> types, one a subset of the other.
>>>>
>>>> -- Faye
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tadhg O'Higgins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Would Influence Node be more useful/interesting if it
>> didn't assume
>>>>> personhood for its instances? Books, Films, Games, and
>>>>>
>>>> Musical Groups
>>>>
>>>>> are all examples of things that seem like Influence Nodes
>>>>>
>>>> but are not
>>>>
>>>>> persons.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should consider removing the /people/person included type from
>>>>> Influence Node for that reason. The alternatives I can see
>>>>>
>>>> are to a)
>>>>
>>>>> create an "Influence <thing>" in each domain that might
>>>>>
>>>> support one,
>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>> b) create an "Influence Thing" type that's just like
>> Influence Node
>>>>> but doesn't include personhood. Neither of those seem as good a
>>>>> solution as widening the scope of Influence Node.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> Tadhg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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