I think typing any of the planets with "Astrology" is not a correct designation. A planet is not a TYPE of astrology. If so, we might as well type planets with "Astronomy" also.
Planets are a categorical PART of astrology and astronomy (a different semantic predicate than TYPE).
I had, however, typed the planets (and the signs) as "Archetype", as this is how the planets are treated within the field of astrology--representative of multi-valent, numinous, archetypal signatures (the Plutonic archetype, etc). This approach is inclusive to the planets universal significance within all the more esoteric fields of traditional astrology, mythology, history, archetypal psychology (etc).
Planets
-
-
-
If all the various disciplines that discuss archetypes would have similar properties for them, that's a reasonable approach. One thing I try to do, however, is to first try to solve the specific problem (in this case, how planets should fit into an astrological model) and worry about the general case (if there is one; in this case whether there will be additional need for an archetype type) later. Sometimes it turns out that there's no need for a generalized type; sometimes it turns out that there is, but the other models that use it require it to be entirely different than I originally thought.
-
I think Archetype should definitely be added, as it is through archetypes that the meanings of ancient religions cross-pollinate into the names of the Planets as we know them now (which itself has a lot to do with their astrological symbolism); you can't think "Jupiter" without remember all the cultural and historical significance of the Greek and Roman civilizations that created and named him. I think the Archetype Type should be seen as a sort of memeplex, and it's name already contains the word "type"!
-
Would you suggest, then, Jeff that Astrological Archetype Type be created as a time and modeled, and later integrate that into a more inclusive Archetype Type?
While I agree with you, miquael, that planets in astrology are best understood as archetypes, the positions of the planets in Signs and Houses and the Aspects they form to other Planets, Angles, and points also has a lot to do with their interpretation and relative meaning, which is why I think the concept of Astrology should be linked to the Freebase Planet entries. I believe discussions like this help clarify the exact kind of relationship necessary, and in the meantime "Astrology" can serve as a placeholder so that all the relevant articles can be viewed in one place before there structural qualities are clarified, modeled, and digitized. I mean, the whole point of digitizing data is that it takes out of a static and makes it dynamic, isn't it? -
This would actually be resolved if we had an Astrology domain which could then be structured. As far as I can find, no such domain exists. If it is unnecessary to create an Astrology domain, or if it is judged that the subject does not warrant a domain of it's own, then a "Belief", "Practice", or "Tradition" domain of some kind should be created that could include it, as none of the present ones accurately describe it.
-
I think an "Astrological archetype" type is the best way to do this, for now. If a need for other archetypal types arises, we can see whether it simply needs to be expanded or generalized or whether there should be a generic type that specific types can use as an included type.
I agree with Miquael about assigning the type of "astrology" to the topics for planets. Assigning a type to a topic asserts an "is a" relationship -- it's a way of saying that the topic is an instance of the type. In this case, it would be saying that "Mercury" is an "astrology", which it isn't. Using types to simply collect things that are related to that type isn't semantically useful; it's much more useful to create types and properties that allow you to say in what way they're related.
In terms of an astrology domain, I continue to encourage you (and anyone else who's interested) to create a structure for astrological information in your private domain(s). Creating structure that doesn't exist elsewhere in the system is one of the main uses for private domains.
-
