In retrospect, my last email was perhaps a little too metaphysical. Here's a more tangible example: Locations in a geographic information system are stored using spatial data. These point, lines, areas or cells may or may not be joined to attributes such as place names and those names may differ depending on the user. Also, the location boundaries may vary depending on who is defining them and over time. Events tied to places should therefore consider their physical location as separate from the attributed name of their location if they are to conform to typical geospatial data standards. <br>
<br>Here's a very silly, complex and hypothetical situation: There was a tree that once grew in a park. The park overlaps the border of two counties and the park's name was changed during the lifetime of the tree. I want to describe the event of the tree's existence because it is special to me for some reason. Furthermore, I consider the area where the tree occurred as place rather than a point. What was the place of the tree during the event of its lifetime (e.g., one polygon that grows over time, one volume that grows over time, two parks, two counties)? It is a silly and complex question but could represent something that will one day require modeling. Does the proposed schema handle the tree? <br>
<br>I think the proposed schema will be fine for most users now but will be limiting in the future if it does not handle the tree.<br><br>-Ed<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 19, 2008 6:57 PM, Faye Li <<a href="mailto:faye@metaweb.com">faye@metaweb.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I can say that at least the convention in the art world for "labeling"<br>is to use names used at the time of artwork creation to identify places<br>
and periods. Relative or not, there is a singular identification for a<br>place given a particular point in time.<br><br>There's no need for retroactive re-naming of art objects where empires<br>fall and national boundaries change. For example, a frieze from Syria in<br>
500 BCE will be labeled to be from the Persian Achaemenid Empire because<br>that was what the place was at the time, even though it no longer<br>exists. And the current location, likely stated in the form of "Present<br>
day Iran", will only be mentioned to provide a reference point, not to<br>serve as primary means of nationality identification.<br><br>So, regardless of Kosovo's declaration of independence, artwork created<br>there while under Serbia rule will continue to be labeled as from<br>
Serbia, although a second line might now appear to indicate the present<br>day location as Kosovo.<br><br>-- Faye<br><div class="Ih2E3d"><br><br>Ed Laurent wrote:<br>> Keep in mind that "place" is different than "location". In other<br>
> words, a point, line or area in space is not the same thing as the<br>> _name_ someone gives that point, line or area at a specified point or<br>> period in time, which may differ and not necessarily completely<br>
> overlap with the name someone else gives that point, line or area at<br>> the same or different point or period in time. In addition to the<br>> difference between "location" and "place", Einstein showed us that<br>
> both space and time are relative and that the physical theory of<br>> relativity can be extended into the psychological realm of perception.<br>> I think these are the issues that most people have been circling in<br>
> this discussion.<br>><br>> -Ed<br>><br>> On Feb 18, 2008 2:19 PM, Kirrily Robert <<a href="mailto:kirrily@metaweb.com">kirrily@metaweb.com</a><br></div><div class="Ih2E3d">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kirrily@metaweb.com">kirrily@metaweb.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>> OK, so the gist I'm getting here is that people feel that the<br>> following properties of events have some relevance:<br>><br>> * start/end date/time<br>> * location<br>> * includes/included by<br>
><br>> Nobody has yet said they feel that "people involved" is<br>> fundamentally relevant.<br>><br>> How about "historical periods"? Do we more or less agree that<br>> that kind of long-running event is still just an event? If so,<br>
> can I propose the refactoring of all the historical periods<br>> currently listed in /time/historic_period into plain old<br>> /time/events? That would also make "historic events" into<br>
> ordinary events. I think I'm OK with that; the distinction<br>> between a "historic" event and a not-historic one is kind of<br>> meaningless anyway.<br>><br>> K.<br>><br>
> --<br>> Kirrily Robert<br>> Freebase Community Director<br></div>> <a href="mailto:kirrily@metaweb.com">kirrily@metaweb.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kirrily@metaweb.com">kirrily@metaweb.com</a>><br>
><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Data-modeling mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Data-modeling@freebase.com">Data-modeling@freebase.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Data-modeling@freebase.com">Data-modeling@freebase.com</a>><br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> <a href="http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling" target="_blank">http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling</a><br>><br>><br></div>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Data-modeling mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Data-modeling@freebase.com">Data-modeling@freebase.com</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling" target="_blank">http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling</a><br>
><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Data-modeling mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Data-modeling@freebase.com">Data-modeling@freebase.com</a><br><a href="http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling" target="_blank">http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>