[Data-modeling] remove /architecture/tower type

[brendan]

Tim,

I created the type a long time ago, so my intuition about towers  
mirrored yours. But I've been convinced otherwise. I agree with Iain  
on the criteria for creating a new type.  The wikipedia article  
"Tower" opens with:

"Towers are tall human-made structures that are almost always taller  
than they are wide, usually by a significant margin"

dictionary definitions don't go much further...

which doesn't inspire a lot of confidence as far as precise  
definitions go. So, to sum it up, "tower" seems like a specific  
something but I failed to find evidence that it actually is :) As  
ridiculous as they might sound.  If a person searching freebase is  
really stuck on finding things that people call towers, they are  
better off just searching for "tower" in the name. I do, however,  
support addition of types for some of the specific things you mentioned.

Brendan

On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:20 AM, Iain Sproat wrote:

> Tim,
>
> Structure is found in the Architecture commons, so is specific to  
> architectural structures and is applicable to most things from  
> aqueducts to zoos (including broadcast towers and skyscrapers).
>
> The main criteria for adding a new type is whether there are any  
> properties in it that aren't covered anywhere else.  e.g. Floor area  
> property in the building type or span length in the bridge type.   
> The tower type doesn't have any properties, which is a good  
> indicator that the schema wasn't appropriate.
>
> My first thought was to try and improve the type, but I couldn't  
> think of a property that wasn't already covered by the structure  
> type and was also appropriate to the wide range of purposes of  
> towers, from historical fortress towers, to communication towers and  
> everything in between.  But that's not to say there isn't a  
> property!  If anyone can think of a property relevant to the tower  
> type, please reply to this discussion.
>
> That said, there are properties appropriate for very specific types  
> of structures which aren't already covered by existing types, e.g.  
> number of microwave transmitters on a TV broadcast tower.  If you  
> want, you can create a new "Communication tower" type if you would  
> like to model this.  See the help page on creating schemas and feel  
> free to submit a question here or on the discussion boards.
>
> If the type is deleted, you can still search for tall towers by  
> using a view to select structures above 250m in height, for example.
>
> Iain (sprocketonline)
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 3:45 AM, <tigre119 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi brendan
> i am tim
> I disagree and think 'towers' is an important class of objects to  
> keep.
> In the sense that they are a distinct structure such as the Eiffel  
> tower and now there are thousands of mobile phone towers and radio  
> transmission towers as well as many tower type sky scrapers in  
> modern cities.
> They are a class of objects in their own right in my view.
> Why do you want to remove the class?
> I am new I thought the more the merrier was the approach.
> Structures is a very broad term, sentences, stories and thoughts  
> have structures.
> Buildings is another term, however 'tower' means a type of building  
> or construction.
> Is it better to expand the tower class rather than remove it?
>
> My freebase is about marsupials and i want to fine-tune it, in fact  
> it needs to contain all available info about marsupials.
> How can I set my freebase so it gathers data automatically and can  
> it index it for me itself after collecting data from round the web?
> So that queries automatically gather and present the details about  
> any species of marsupials and associated plants and animals, from a  
> range of data bases such as Berkley Uni, Smithsonian inst., DBPedia  
> and others.
> the data results are needed as a mash-up result from several  
> sources, displayed as a form or a webpage.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:22 AM, brendan <brendan at metaweb.com> wrote:
> At Kirrily and sprocketonline's suggestion, I am going to remove this
> type.  It has no properties and is too vague a category of structure
> to merit it's own type.  The structure type covers the important
> properties. The 12 existing tower's will be de-typed manually (they
> will still be structure's) Any objections?
>
> Brendan
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090605/acca3b12/attachment-0001.htm