[Data-modeling] Project, projects everywhere

[brendan]

structure is not meant to be used for just any physical object.  I've  
used the phrase "the built environment" in the architecture domain and  
I acknowledge it's a little nebulous but basically we're talking  
about: buildings, bridges... fixed human built things in our  
environment.  A good number of the structures are notable, therefore  
knowing who designed the thing is often interesting. For a smaller set  
of structures knowing who engineered it, or paid for it, or... is  
probably interesting.  I completely agree that adding complex  
structure should be predicated by an actual need (i.e. available,  
desirable data).  There is available and desirable data for buildings  
and who designed them.  A lot of it's in the wikipedia but hasn't been  
scraped up into freebase.

Brendan

On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Tom Morris wrote:

>> All /architecture/structure topics were typed with the included  
>> type /
>> projects/project_focus .
>
> It's probably too late now, but I really question the utility of this.
> What percentage of those 40,000 houses are going to have "project"
> information?
>
> Pretty much everything that exists was created/manufactured.  Are
> physical objects described in Freebase going to sprout "participated
> in creation event" even though information about the creation process
> is only interesting for a miniscule fraction of them?
>
> Tom
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Bryan Cheung <bryan.cheung at metaweb.com 
> > wrote:
>> Looks like it was done as part of DA-590 (https://bugs.freebase.com/browse/DA-590
>> ).
>> All /architecture/structure topics were typed with the included  
>> type /
>> projects/project_focus .
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2009, at 12:51 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
>>
>>> In looking at this 1796 house
>>> http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000ab25d6a I
>>> noticed that it recently got tagged a "Project Focus" by the
>>> gardening_bot.  In looking at the bots history, it looks like it
>>> tagged 40K of these things.  This new type has got no description,  
>>> so
>>> I can't even tell if there's a plausible reason for this, but it  
>>> seems
>>> unlikely that anyone's going to be providing much project  
>>> information
>>> on a 1796 house building project, but before I created a bug  
>>> report on
>>> this bot gone wild, I figured I check and see if there's a valid
>>> modeling reason for it.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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