[Developers] /common/topic as an included type of /common/image

[Mike Shwe]

Great questions:


* Why was this done in the first place?

We don't know. I spoke with the developer who apparently made this included type assertion, and we don't know this would have been needed.

* What's now changed that means it's not needed any more?

I don't think it was ever needed. But, if you're building another client for data input and want to use included types, you're tempted to follow the included types in the Freebase schema, unless you special case your code for /common/image, which is another thing one could do. It seems cleaner to just remove the included type, though.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Kendall" <philip-freebase at shadowmagic.org.uk>
To: developers at freebase.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 2:29:49 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: [Developers] /common/topic as an included type of /common/image

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:00:55PM -0700, Mike Shwe wrote:
> 
> Yes, it's true. Since June 2007, /common/topic has been an included type of /common/image: 
> 
> http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/common/image 
> 
> So, unless anyone suggests that we keep this included type, I would like to remove it in the next day or so. 

Possibly dumb questions:

* Why was this done in the first place?
* What's now changed that means it's not needed any more?

The comments on DA-78 didn't make things much clearer :-)

Cheers,

Phil

-- 
  Philip Kendall <philip at shadowmagic.org.uk>
  http://www.shadowmagic.org.uk/
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
Developers at freebase.com
http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/developers