[Data-modeling] Military Unit

[Kirrily Robert]

On Apr 8, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Iain Sproat wrote:

> I second that.
>
> Having had a look at the schema, I don't think Military unit really  
> needs a seperate type - a unit is itself an armed force which is a  
> subdivision of a larger armed force.  (In fact a lot of topics  
> currently typed as 'armed force' are actually units in our current  
> definition, and a cleanup would be required)
> If Armed Force had a 'formed', 'disbanded' and 'size  
> designation' (dated) properties then the Military unit type is  
> obsolete and we would be able to use Armed Force in its place.
>
The addition of the "military unit" type was something I did recently  
and meant to post here but didn't get around to -- sorry!  Too many  
things going on at once.

I need to add some documentation (damn, could've sworn I wrote it --  
perhaps on sandbox and it got wiped?), but the intent is as follows:

An armed force is the highest level of military unit, and has no  
military chain of command outside of itself.  It usually reports  
directly to a government or similar body.  A military unit is a  
smaller part of an armed force.  Since the "military unit" type didn't  
previously exist, there are many units currently typed as armed  
forces, and this needs cleanup.

Properties which armed forces have, but military units don't, include:  
ranks used (property doesn't yet exist, but should), military posts,  
aircraft owned, warships owned (doesn't yet exist), etc.

I agree, however, that a military person's relationship with their  
unit needs to be modelled.  Probably not in the military service CVT,  
which is mostly used to track rank and service, but in another similar  
one called "Units" or something, since the two are kind of orthogonal.

Thoughts?

K.

-- 
Kirrily Robert
Freebase Community Director
kirrily at metaweb.com
http://freebase.com/