I have only noticed symmetric relationships that are also their own compound value types<br><br>Adjoin: <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/location/adjoining_relationship">http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/location/adjoining_relationship
</a><br>Sibling: <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/people/sibling_relationship">http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/people/sibling_relationship</a><br><br>and Dan recommends this for &#39;Similar Artist&#39;:<br>
<br><a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/discuss/music/artist#%239202a8c04000641f8000000005b8a960">http://www.freebase.com/view/discuss/music/artist#%239202a8c04000641f8000000005b8a960</a><br><br>is there a way to make symmetric relationships that are easier to build and query?
<br><br>thanks!<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/1/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">John Giannandrea</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:jg@metaweb.com">jg@metaweb.com</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Mike Love wrote:<br>&gt; I wanted to make a symmetrical analog of the influenced /<br>&gt; influenced_by relationship, and had to make it a CVT to get this<br>&gt; result.<br><br>Shooting from the hip I would suggest that &#39;peer&#39; could be a property
<br>on influence_node rather than a new type.<br><br>&gt; This query below works, although it gives both names in each<br>&gt; relationship and the whole query comes back empty if the person had<br>&gt; no peers:<br><br>You need to expand it further with an optional clause.
<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;peers&quot;:[{<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;peers&quot;:[{<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;name&quot;:null,<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;optional&quot;:true<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; }]<br><br>-jg<br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>