<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<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
[mailto:data-modeling-bounces@freebase.com] <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></BODY></HTML>