<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Jun 14, 2009, at 12:23 PM, Tom Morris wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>These two got flagged for merge recently which reminded me that I've<br>been meaning to ask why there are two parallel sets of language<br>definitions. The /type/lang topics appear to be used internally for<br>things like tagging strings and users languages, etc, but semantically<br>it appears to be identical to the topics which are typed<br>/language/human_language.<br><br>I imagine that the /type/lang languages were needed for bootstrapping,<br>but are they still needed. If they are, is there a way that they can<br>be hidden or made less visible as well as locked so that people don't<br>try to add the /language/human_language type to them (as happened<br>recently to German when someone picked the wrong one).<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>You've described the situation well - the /type/lang instances are part of how the system works, and even though they're similar to /en/german_language, they're not topics, they shouldn't be user visible.</div><div><br></div><div>I've just filed a bug CLI-8407 on this...</div><div><br></div><div>Alec</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>Tom<br>_______________________________________________<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></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>