I like the idea of having a single "Media subject" type. Another option
might be to keep all the existing types and have them include or delegate from the new
generalized type. Then the existing subject types could be evaluated on
a case by case basis by base members to see if they
should be deleted or merged.<br><br>-Ed<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Faye Harris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:faye@metaweb.com">faye@metaweb.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
+1. Way too many "foo subjects" types. And the expected type of<br>
something with a media subject would be a generic media type...<br>
Something that would resolve DA-445, perhaps?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-- Faye<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Jeff Prucher wrote:<br>
> <<a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000b912218" target="_blank">http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f800000000b912218</a>><br>
><br>
> This is a thread in which it is proposed that we collapse all the various<br>
> media subject types (book subject, film subject, etc.) into one big (new)<br>
> Media Subject type. Functionally, this would result in one type with many<br>
> properties, rather than many types with one property each.<br>
><br>
> The main advantage I can see to this is that users wouldn't have to add new<br>
> types if they wanted to indicate that a topic was a subject of a type it<br>
> didn't already have (that is, if you wanted to say that a particular radio<br>
> program had a subject of, say, "Porcupines", but the Porcupine topic was<br>
> only the subject of a book currently, you wouldn't have to add the type<br>
> "Radio Subject" -- you could just fill in the property).<br>
><br>
> A minor advantage _might_ be that people creating types in bases would have<br>
> a type they could all reference if they had a new type that needed a subject<br>
> property. Although this also has the disadvantage that these properties<br>
> would not be reciprocated, whereas if the user created a new "foo subject"<br>
> type, it would be.<br>
><br>
> This would also be a fairly major change, since we'd be nuking a lot of<br>
> types, which would potentially break all kinds of things (we could keep the<br>
> old property keys, but I'm not sure about the type keys). It also has<br>
> implications for other places where similar patterns exist (media genres and<br>
> ficitional characters are two that come to mind).<br>
><br>
> What do you think about this?<br>
><br>
> Jeff<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>
><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>