[Data-modeling] Types for subjects

[Faye Harris]

Yes, it'd be more general. Isn't it the *only* way of having a 
type-appropriate reciprocal property though? I.e. show me "things" of 
this subject. Without a new type as a bucket for "things", there'd be 
only two options:

1) Use n properties, each for a media type: books of this subject, short 
stories of this subject, plays of this subject, films of this subject, 
TV shows of this subject, radio shows of this subject...
2) Use /common/topic.

Unless there's no reciprocal property?

-- Faye


Jeff Prucher wrote:
> What you're proposing is an even more general type than what's proposed in
> DA-445, and wouldn't really address that issue at all.  I kind of think that
> having a "media item with subject" type, with only a property for subject,
> wouldn't really get us much.
>
> Jeff
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com 
>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Faye Harris
>> Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 12:52 PM
>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Types for subjects
>>
>> +1. Way too many "foo subjects" types. And the expected type of
>> something with a media subject would be a generic media type... 
>> Something that would resolve DA-445, perhaps?
>>
>> -- Faye
>>
>>
>> Jeff Prucher wrote:
>>     
>>> <http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000b912218>
>>>
>>> This is a thread in which it is proposed that we collapse all the 
>>> various media subject types (book subject, film subject, etc.) into 
>>> one big (new) Media Subject type.  Functionally, this would 
>>>       
>> result in 
>>     
>>> one type with many properties, rather than many types with 
>>>       
>> one property each.
>>     
>>> The main advantage I can see to this is that users wouldn't have to 
>>> add new types if they wanted to indicate that a topic was a 
>>>       
>> subject of 
>>     
>>> a type it didn't already have (that is, if you wanted to say that a 
>>> particular radio program had a subject of, say, 
>>>       
>> "Porcupines", but the 
>>     
>>> Porcupine topic was only the subject of a book currently, 
>>>       
>> you wouldn't 
>>     
>>> have to add the type "Radio Subject" -- you could just fill 
>>>       
>> in the property).
>>     
>>> A minor advantage _might_ be that people creating types in 
>>>       
>> bases would 
>>     
>>> have a type they could all reference if they had a new type that 
>>> needed a subject property. Although this also has the disadvantage 
>>> that these properties would not be reciprocated, whereas if 
>>>       
>> the user created a new "foo subject"
>>     
>>> type, it would be.
>>>
>>> This would also be a fairly major change, since we'd be 
>>>       
>> nuking a lot 
>>     
>>> of types, which would potentially break all kinds of things 
>>>       
>> (we could 
>>     
>>> keep the old property keys, but I'm not sure about the type 
>>>       
>> keys). It 
>>     
>>> also has implications for other places where similar patterns exist 
>>> (media genres and ficitional characters are two that come to mind).
>>>
>>> What do you think about this? 
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Data-modeling mailing list
>>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
>>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Data-modeling mailing list
>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>>
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>
>