[Data-modeling] Type for groups/sets of people (or any entity?)

[Robert Cook]

On Jul 20, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Iain Sproat wrote:

> The reason for creating the type was that groups are often mentioned  
> in literature, art and media, and not just as a list of  
> individuals .  The group as an entity is the focus, and not the  
> component pieces.
>
>  the name "people" seems a little awkward.
>
> Yeah, agreed.  My initial idea of the type is that it is to be used  
> for small definable groups which share some sort of connection and  
> relevance to each other; e.g. played music together, attended an  
> event together, lived together, worked closely together,  are/were  
> conjoined, wrote together etc..  "People" doesn't really get that  
> across.

This is very interesting.  Normally I would say that these could be  
defined with properties on a topic, but what I think you're implying  
is that there is no topic in many cases.  For instance, you would  
normally be able to tell of people lived together if they all shared  
the same value on their "Places lived" property.  But perhaps you  
don't know where they lived, but just that they lived together.

I think a generic list type is a great way to start capturing data if  
even in a semi-structured way.  As long as the data gets into  
Freebase, then it should be straightforward to upgrade the formality  
as needed.

R