[Data-modeling] Are Influence Nodes necessarily persons?

Fri Oct 31 00:59:02 UTC 2008

Proof that multitasking is overrated. ;)

Well, in that case, allow me to flip-flop and recant my support for 
"Peer", which, when you think about it, is no more than a shorthand for 
both "Influencer" and "Influencee". That is made even more obvious if 
you remove "Person" as an included type of "Influence Node", but 
otherwise keep the type the same. What does "Peer" even mean when the 
two sides of an influence node are of arbitrary types, such as a person 
and a book, or an event and a film?

-- Faye

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
>
>   