[Data-modeling] State of the commons (C-F)

[Robert Cook]

On Jul 1, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Kirrily Robert wrote:

> Chemistry: Fairly solid.  I wonder about the type "Chemist", though,
> which has no properties.

This was my fault from long, long ago before we had a "profession"  
property on people.  I think this probably should be deprecated and  
the data moved to profession.

> Cricket: Like many specific sports commons, is sparse and poorly-
> maintained.  We're just not that into sports, I think!

This was developed by a former Metaweb employee.  I don't think that  
it's necessarily due to a lack of interest in sports, but rather an  
American incomprehension of that particular game.  That said, I have  
to think there are enthusiasts in the Freebase community.

> Digicams: well designed schema, but very static.  Had we had bases
> when this was built, we would've made it one, I think.  Makes me wish
> we could split all product-related stuff out of Business into a
> Products commons, and move the digicam data into there.

I developed this, and indeed, it started as a "private domain".  I've  
got another one on mobile phones:
   http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/user/robert/mobile_phones/mobile_phone?domain=%2Fuser%2Frobert%2Fmobile_phones

Both of these domains have a lot of support types.  I'm a bit worried  
if they were unified into a single mega-domain it would have hundreds  
if not thousands of types.

> Film: What's there is fairly solid, but only really handles feature
> films. There's an ongoing issue regarding what to do about made-for-TV
> movies, Internet-published video, music videos, shorts, etc.  A hard
> problem.

Yes, the world is changing fast and we need to meet it.  Lots of films  
(short, long form) are going direct to internet.  Are they films?  TV  
episodes?  Direct to video?   This is probably a long discussion back  
at the Film domain.

R