<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On May 11, 2009, at 8:46 AM, Iain Sproat wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">Ed,<div><br><div>1) Each individual mast in a wind farm is a separate structure. The problem is that the <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/architecture/structure">structure</a> type currently doesn't have a property which gives a relationship between a group of structures and an individual structure - although, for building's <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/architecture/building_complex">building complex</a> groups multiple <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/architecture/building">buildings</a> .<div> We cannot make the relationship between groups of structures and the individual structures which are not buildings - e.g. <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/en/junglinster_longwave_transmitter">radio masts</a> , <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/en/allen_telescope_array">telescope arrays</a> , <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/en/great_belt_fixed_link">linked bridges</a> , <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/en/delta_works">coastal defences</a> , <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/en/maginot_line">fortifications</a> etc. etc.<br> <div>It is something I had explored in the (draft) <a href="http://architecture2.freebase.com/type/schema/base/architecture2/structure2">structure2</a> type - I'd created a "Part of larger structure or complex" property. Let me know your comments on this.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm the one who created the building/building complex property (quite awhile ago), and I think that generalizing this to structures is a very good idea.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm wondering, however, if it might make sense to use "/location/location/containedby", perhaps for both structures and buildings, as it's likely that queries for containment might be done in a very general way.</div><div><br></div><div>We could still have "Building complex" and "Structure complex" as types (or even deprecate Building complex) for the "is-a" definition.</div></body></html>