[Data-modeling] Military Unit

[Jeff Prucher]

The problem with separating wars from component conflicts has always been
that they have the same metadata, which is often a sign that two things
should be the same type.  Having lots of different kinds of events be part
of an event is strength of the event model, I think; if you're only
interested in a subset of them, you can easily filter by type.  
 
Unless I'm wrong, of course, and the metadata should be different for the
two?
 
Jeff


  _____  

From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
[mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of spencer kelly
Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:01 PM
To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Military Unit


this is a really great schema, 
maybe it could also be used to model weaponry, warboats, awarded-medals,
military strategies...

also, hmm.. could we maybe use a 'war' type? 
i get how its being done now, and while i usually like it when people make
use of the event type, i think that the war-to-military conflict
relationship warrants its own typing maybe? as they share the 'why' data
about a war- so queries like how many military people are still alive from
ww2  are one step easier - speeches, protests are also 'events included' in
ww2 ... so maybe a 'war' type?
i dont know. thats a tough call. i like how currently we can say william
Ernest Staton participated in conflict -WW2 , if we dont know which exact
battles.  
'included in event' is always a little vague.
so err, tricky one. what do others think about this issue?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20090408/aaa93286/attachment.htm