[Data-modeling] structure2: using the Project schema

[brendan]

As admin of the current commons architecture domain, I agree with the  
issues you have brought up, the time for refactor has arrived :)

This is a sub-thread, since there are several different things to  
discuss, perhaps we could observe the Subject line format above  
("structure2: <topic>).  I hope to have conversations on this list  
drive incremental changes to the existing structure type (and assoc.  
types).

I, too, am concerned about the complexity of using the project types   
(created by Kirrily): in particular, that something pretty  
fundamental, which architect designed a building, will no longer be  
visible in the freebase UI (or any simple topic view template that  
someone is likely to create in acre or elsewhere) Take an example:

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/royal_festival_hall

To summarize: The existing structure type has a simple property:  
"Architect". I agree that this is too simple.

The new structure2 has no such property but, rather, will be co-typed  
"Project focus". That type has a property "Projects" which indicates  
which projects this structure is the focus of (e.g. http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000aa8e831) 
    That topic (a "Project") the has a "Participants" property which  
points to a "Project Participation" type, a CVT which has the simple  
slot for the person and their role (e.g. architect)

freebase.com's client browser handles an extra level of indirection  
gracefully (properties that point to CVT's). In the project model, the  
architect is out one level too far to be included in the topic view  
for a building/structure.  Don't get me wrong, I think the project  
schema is sound/correct.  I'm just wondering if we could strike a  
better balance between correctness and complexity here.

Kirrily, am I off the mark here?

Brendan



On Feb 24, 2009, at 1:58 AM, Iain Sproat wrote:

> Over the past day or two spencermountain and I (sprocketonline) have  
> been drafting up some proposed changes to the Structure type in the  
> Architect commons.
>
> The work-in-progress draft schema, called structure2, can be found  
> at http://architecture2.freebase.com/type/schema/base/architecture2/structure2
> We've been discussing this previously on Freebase discussions here  
> and here .
>
> I had been running into a large number of edge cases and issues with  
> the current structure type in the architect commons.  For example,  
> how to note engineers who weren't structural; how to note role  
> differences between lead architect and associate architect; design/ 
> contractor teams which changed half way through construction; how to  
> note a facility manager; difference between freehold owners and  
> leasehold owners etc. etc..  Also structures which changed functions  
> or were damaged and/or have been renovated/extended are causing some  
> issues.
>
> Separately, skud had created a Projects base, and this seems to fit  
> well with building/structure design projects and construction  
> projects.
>
> I've made extensive use of the project base in the draft structure2  
> schema.  We've also tried to fix some of the other areas by  
> introducing a lot of new CVTs into structure2.  The problem I can  
> see with structure2 is that it might be too complex/UI-unfriendly  
> with things being not immediately obvious (e.g. architects and  
> engineers are noted in a project topic, not the structure topic -> http://architecture2.freebase.com/view/base/architecture2/views/construction_projects) 
> .
>
> Your comments please.....
>
> Iain (sprocketonline)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20090226/e5639d3b/attachment.htm