<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>As a longtime wargamer, I can say with some authority that there is a large body of literature that discusses the issues of data modeling with regard to military units. A quick google for "data model" & "order of battle" will reveal some of them.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Apr 8, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Jeff Prucher wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"> <div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="968511122-08042009"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">The problem with separating wars from component conflicts has always been that they have the same metadata, which is often a sign that two things should be the same type. Having lots of different kinds of events be part of an event is strength of the event model, I think; if you're only interested in a subset of them, you can easily filter by type. </font></span></div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="968511122-08042009"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span> </div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="968511122-08042009"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">Unless I'm wrong, of course, and the metadata should be different for the two?</font></span></div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="968511122-08042009"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2"></font></span> </div> <div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="968511122-08042009"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff" size="2">Jeff</font></span></div><br> <blockquote style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <div class="OutlookMessageHeader" lang="en-us" dir="ltr" align="left"> <hr tabindex="-1"> <font face="Tahoma" size="2"><b>From:</b> data-modeling-bounces@freebase.com [<a href="mailto:data-modeling-bounces@freebase.com">mailto:data-modeling-bounces@freebase.com</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>spencer kelly<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:01 PM<br><b>To:</b> Freebase data modeling mailing list<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Data-modeling] Military Unit<br></font><br></div> <div></div>this is a really great schema, <br>maybe it could also be used to model weaponry, warboats, awarded-medals, military strategies...<br><br>also, hmm.. could we maybe use a 'war' type? <br>i get how its being done now, and while i usually like it when people make use of the event type, i think that the war-to-military conflict relationship warrants its own typing maybe? as they share the 'why' data about a war- so queries like how many military people are still alive from ww2 are one step easier - speeches, protests are also 'events included' in ww2 ... so maybe a 'war' type?<br>i dont know. thats a tough call. i like how currently we can say w<span class="prop-content-row" id="ID1001">illiam Ernest Staton </span>participated in conflict -WW2 , if we dont know which exact battles. <br>'included in event' is always a little vague.<br>so err, tricky one. what do others think about this issue?<br></blockquote></div> _______________________________________________<br>Data-modeling mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Data-modeling@freebase.com">Data-modeling@freebase.com</a><br>http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>