Perhaps a "Broader field of study" and "Narrower fields of study" or "Subdisciplines" property would be useful in organizing these? (i.e. Business Administration is a subdiscipline of Business)
Discussions on Domains and Types
Filtersonly show threads also posted in:
-
-
-
I agree. Currently, for example, philosophy, ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics are all simply "feilds of study". That's fine as far as it goes, but within the philosophy feild of study type we should be able to specify that ethics, epistemolgoy and metaphysics are subdisciplines. I'm not sure what a good name for the reciprocal property of "super-discipline" would be. Perhaps something like "is a subdiscipline of"
-
Just posting this to crosspost this disscussion.
-
That seems pretty reasonable to me, so I added the two properties to the Field of Study type.
-
-
-
-
We need a type for philosophies. We've got topics on all sorts of philosophies, but they tend to be labeled as film or book subjects.
-
What are some examples? Do you also have ideas for what properties might be applied to these philosophies?
-
Examples? Sure. Existensialism is a typical example of a philosophy. As for what properties, I'm not sure. I imagine something like what the main focus of the philosophy is (e.g., some philosophies focus more on epistemology than on metaphysics, especially postmodernist philosophies), or what type of philosophy, etc. Wikipedia's philosophy portal would be a good model.
-
I don't think it would be terribly useful to have a type for "a philosophy". There isn't really such a thing a philosophy, only various collections philosophical ideas. I would recommend creating types for philosophy subtopics such as epistemology, metaphysics, phil of language, ethics, etc. There could also be types for schools of thought such as utilitarianism, existentialism, functionalism (to name a very random assortment from different areas of philosophy).
-
-
-
I've been slowly adding the historical results of baseball's world series, and in thinking about the 1994 world series, I hit upon a bit of a hurdle: this world series didn't occur.
As a piece of information, this fact seems relevant to me. However, in terms of integrating the "non-event" into the site, it really doesn't fit at all with the structure of all the other world series results, namely, "winner, loser, score", etc.
I guess that my question, then, is how is one to deal with non-events that are nevertheless relevant precisely because of their exceptionalism? The expectation of a world series in 1994, given the pattern set both before and after the cancelled season, separates this instance from all others in its class. However, since the actual event never occurred, I’m not sure if representing it in the current schema is either (i) possible or (ii) desirable.
There are other examples of this kind of expected-but-never-occurred event, notably in sports, and I was wondering if there are any ideas/suggestions on how to represent this type of information.
Thanks-
That's a good point. Just because an event doesn't appear in Freebase doesn't mean you can assume that it didn't occur.
I would model this by co-typing the 1994 World Series topic with a Canceled Event type and then maybe add a property to say why it was canceled.
-
Ditto what Shawn said; a new type seems the best way to handle this. I would also strongly recommend bringing up this discussion on the data-modeling mailing list.
-
cool, thanks for the feedback. I will definitely bring this up on the list.
-
-
-
I'm a newbbie around here.
So far I only got the idea that freebase is for wikipedia data only.
How 'm I going to use other database like USPTO ?
-
I can see how you got that idea, since most of our textual articles came from Wikipedia. However, the structured data came from many sources, including MusicBrainz, the SEC, and Freebase users like you.
Strictly, you can’t use other databases in Freebase; this is one database. (Well, OK, two or three. Still.) But you could import patent databases into Freebase, assuming that they are compatibe with our Creative Commons licensing requirement. Check out the US Patent type for the very small set of examples already populated.
-
-
-
As I was looking through the categories, it came to me that perhaps money is too broad for the types beneath. Money has an overarching quality that is not expressed in the types. Money is more like history. It is a property of or involved in more topics than we'd like to admit.
In contribution to the community,
PMM-
Hey, PMM. Thanks for the suggestion.
On the Domains & Types page, "Money" is just a label for the collection of domains listed under it. That is, the things labeled as domain categories (including money) aren't part of the data structure per se. Instead, they're navigational elements to help people find related data. So toward that end, we're going for broad labels.
I'd say that "Commerce" is too narrow for the domains and types collected there, but it's certainly possible that another term would better help people find the data.
Sarah -
Speaking of changing it to commerce
what about a classified section? Or have I just missed it?
If there isn't one, there should be.
-
What would go in a classified section? Freebase is not really intended for ephemeral data such as classified ads themselves; we would quickly be full of obsolete listings. We could certainly model information about classified ads, but I am not sure what that would entail.
If you are thinking we should actually have classified ads—well, I’m not one of the Metaweb business people, but I can’t imagine that competing with Craigslist is something that would make our investors happy. (-: And remember that nothing in Freebase is ever deleted—not really an ideal tool for classified ads.
-
-
-
Considering there's no data in it, I think that this was accidentally typed /people/person. It should probably be removed.
-
I see skud already removed it. Please keep in mind that Freebase is a community-edited Web site; that means that the community—meaning you—can and should edit it when you find problems. Any logged-in user can remove a type from a topic by using the little drop-down arrow under the type’s name.
-
I had tried it, but for some reason the change didn't go through. Thanks, though, both of you. ^_^
-
-
-
-
More types and domains are being added all the time. This forum is a central place to post comments and suggestions for new ones.
-
I added a Card Game type in my types... it it right to put it there?
It's supposed to be used for card games like poker and collectible card games... -
When viewing a company... in this case Vodafone... the headquarters address type does not contain a country field. Could you please add this. Many thx. Iain
-
I'm quite new to freebase - trying to figure how to create the Mobile Country Code (MCC) & Mobile Network Code types for Mobile Network Operators... any help appreciated!
-
Totally new and somewhat bewildered - noticed that the Music domain does not contain 'music scores'. I want to eventually upload a bunch of info / links related to various music scores, specifically choral music scores held by our library. At this point, not at all sure how to accomplish this but a good start would be finding the correct topic. Many thanks for help in adding: music scores, choral music scores, musical scores or let me know where these are.
-
Infobuddha—Thanks for your comment. The music domain is still growing and evolving, and feedback is always helpful. In what sense is a score, for your purposes, different from compositions and arrangements? Do you specially need to describe attributes of the physical objects, or the publications of multiple (nearly-)identical physical objects, or the music described by the objects?
A good starting point would be to list the properties that you want a score to have, and a good way to do that is to prototype a type in your own domain. Let us know if you have any questions about that; the music domain would be a good place to continue the discussion.
Welcome!
-
infobuddha, It seems like the "Arrangement" type would work. I think the term "score" and "arrangement" could be used inter-changeably. Currently, "Arrangement" has only one property, "Arrangement of" which points to the composition (type "Composition"). I do think "Arrangement" could use some other properties: one comes to mind: "Arranged by", expected (new) type "Arranger" There are different kinds of arrangements. Rather than have that be a property, perhaps having additional types that impart the relevant properties of arrangements would make more sense: "Choral Arrangement" "Big Band Arrangement" "Orchestral Arrangement" As always, there are many ways to slice this pie. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this...
-
Jul 21, 2007
-