[Data-modeling] the commons / non distinction is a farce

[Ed Laurent]

>
>
>    1. A lot of types I create are just drafts.  I would rather create a
>    draft type in the sandbox if it wasn't guaranteed that my hard work was
>    scrubbed away each week.  Perhaps a way of flagging draft types in the
>    sandbox so they are saved temporarily during scrubbing and get re-inserted.
>     It would reduce one of the biggest hangups of sandbox use.  If the sandbox
>    was used more, it would reduce the number of types in the production graph.
>
>
+1. I don't use sandbox for this very reason. There's too much of a time lag
between getting feedback (often months) and the sandbox scrub. Maybe flagged
schema could be moved to a separate part of the sandbox graph? Draft types
are helpful in this regard, but can really clutter "My types" for those of
us with lots of bases.


>
>    1.
>    2. Making it easier to clone types in the sandbox would help boost its
>    popularity as the place to do schema drafts.  Once the draft is finished, a
>    quick way of getting it from sandbox to a base in the production graph would
>    help reduce friction.  One click would be great!
>
>
+1. I requested type cloning over a year ago. It would be a great feature to
have in the sandbox. Combined with #1, this would greatly improve the pace
at which schema evolve. I also still vote for opening the sandbox schema
editing to everyone.


>    1.
>    2. A more drastic solution-> User properties.  Similar to having user
>    types on topics, it might be possible to have user properties on types?
>     Would definitely help with all the requests for reciprocation.  And if a
>    user property proves useful, the type admin could click a button to bring it
>    into the fold.
>
>
+1. I like this! It should be limited to experts and admins IMO, but would
be really helpful for moving schema along.


Maybe something that should be added to this list is to return the ability
for users to move types among the bases they admin. I have a bunch that I'd
like to move now that they're getting some use. When adding data, I often
find myself moving from base to base following regular patterns of links, so
I'd like to regroup these types into other existing bases or new bases. It's
not always the case (nor should it really be expected) that I have a well
thought out plan when starting a new base and drafting schema. I understand
the need for consistency for developers, but sometimes schema just need to
be regrouped. It's also pretty clear that we shouldn't expect action on Jira
tickets for these kinds of requests (i.e., schema refactoring, data
uploads). "Learn MQL" will probably be the response, and I respect that
view, but a boy can dream (and continue procrastinating instead of learning
how to program!). :)

-Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20090701/a17b830e/attachment.htm