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

[Robert Cook]

What about "notable siblings"?  I think if you can name a dozen or so  
examples, it makes sense to create a type in a base and go at it.

R

On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Ed Laurent wrote:

> Cohen Brothers, Brothers Grimm, etc. I'm not sure this list type  
> works that well for them either. A simple "Group of entities" CVT  
> with "Group" and "Group member" properties/types might be sufficient.
>
> -Ed
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Robert Cook <robert at metaweb.com>  
> wrote:
> So, I tried the list type on it, and the results are here:
>   http://www.freebase.com/edit/topic/en/erinyes
>
> This does seem awkward in this case as one wouldn't normally think  
> of this as a list and the members as entries, so perhaps it's a bit  
> too generic (but clearly this isn't a group of people either.)
>
> My data modeling instincts tell me that this would quickly turn into  
> something like a Group of Mythological Entities type, so this may  
> not be the best example of when to use a generic list type.
>
> R
>
> On Jul 20, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Ed Laurent wrote:
>
>> Another use case is/are 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20090720/4b6774e2/attachment.htm