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

[Ed Laurent]

Another use case is/are Erinyes<http://www.freebase.com/edit/topic/en/erinyes>
.

-Ed


On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Robert Cook <robert at metaweb.com> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090720/0c9eeea2/attachment.htm