[Data-modeling] the commons / non distinction is a farce

[Ed Laurent]

+1!

I find the current approach to commons prioritization pretty frustrating. It
just add extra steps and confusion for me and anyone else using my types. I
try to use commons types whenever I can, but I'm increasingly finding
commons types and properties that duplicate what I've already modeled. There
is therefore an increased burden on me to repeatedly refactor my models and
migrate data if I use them.

-Ed


On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Spencer Kelly <spencerkelly86 at gmail.com>wrote:

> an undiscussed part of the new layout is that only commons types and their
> data are displayed on the browse page.
> a fair choice, especially considering we have (so far) decided not to
> delete the duplicate, silly, or otherwise junk types.
> though, by determining if anyone will see the work we do, the commons
> distinction has now become political.
> in all fairness, there are some really thoughtful types outside the
> commons, and some pretty flakey types within.
> We need a fair way for our good types to 'rise out of the junk', and a
> responsible (and scalable!) way to do this is allowing users to vote to
> promote or demote specific types.
>
> is metaweb ready to democratize control of what makes the browse page and
> what doesn't?
> if implemented, schema building would instantly become more collaborative,
> goal-oriented, and users would be better motivated to maintain and defend
> their ontologies.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090629/9b19a109/attachment-0001.htm