sgmils

sgmils: Are type administrators notified of a comment?

2007-08-20T21:11:55.0000Z

I fully appreciate the concern, Jeff, and your note is not falling on deaf ears. The tools I mentioned above are moving through development, and I'm convening the admins within the next week to discuss the responsibilities of the role (we haven't previously formalized this). I realized that may not be a fully satisfactory answer, and I hope you'll bear with us through alpha as we work out these kinks.

sgmils: Are type administrators notified of a comment?

2007-08-20T20:09:39.0000Z

Correction: the link to the Biology page post about Organism Classification is here.

sgmils: Are type administrators notified of a comment?

2007-08-20T20:06:59.0007Z

Hi Sarah. This post has been on the Taxon type discussion page for a week. This post has been on the Biology page for most of the month with a recent comment from user lukeschubert asking for a response from domain administrators to promote a user type for Organism Classification which is already being used to populate a lot of data. The fear is that the domain administrators are not responding because they have their own plans for an organism classification type which will wipe out the work that I and other users have put in to a user-supplied type. Even a small message from the domain administrators would be useful, especially if they plan to supply their own type and data uploads to override the efforts of the user community so we don't waste our time. You get the picture.

sgmils: populating the business domain

2007-08-18T21:13:06.0000Z

Hey, Ken. I think that if you start prototyping, you’ll find that specific CRM applications and CRM business practices have very different properties and would warrant different types. A good rule of thumb for types is the phrase “X is a Y,” e.g. “Gone with the Wind is a film.” What does it mean to say that something “is a CRM”? I think it is more natural to say that something “is a CRM software product,” or “is a CRM business practice.” Try making a few types in your personal domain, adding instances, and see how it goes.

sgmils: populating the business domain

2007-08-18T02:29:29.0000Z

Thanks for you’re your replies Sarah and Alexander!
I should say up-front that I’m feeling a bit muddled in my thoughts on this, but let’s see where it goes…
First a simple question: Will it be possible for content served-up on a single Freebase page to wear a variety of types applied to discrete sections within the page, or will types (and/or tags) always apply to a whole page?
Okay the next bit is more complicated. I’ll use the example of CRM; I’m not sure how familiar you’ll be with the subject, so please forgive me if my dialog is a bit pedantic.
It is easy to imaging a range of pages that would use the type ‘CRM’. They might include content about:
1. Specific examples of CRM applications (software)
2. CRM applications generally, and sub-variants like SaaS, hosted and stand-alone, possibly for a range of user environment contexts (home office, SME, enterprise)
3. CRM as a business practice, concentrating on software and its use
4. CRM divided into separate types of discrete, software-centred business functions including operational, analytic and collaborative CRM (this dominating current Wikipedia content, as posted by META Group (a commercial IT & business consultancy))
5. CRM as a broader, organisation-spanning business function, and even a business attribute or ethos, tied to the concept of consumer orientation (this being a more objectively valid, contemporary interpretation in business and academic contexts)
Now, taking #1 above, a specific CRM application it is quite easy to imagine a likely set of appropriate types that could be applied to a single page detailing, for example, the CRM application (or service) sold by Salesforce.com: CRM, customer relationship management, software, CRM software, Salesforce, salesforce.com, on-demand CRM, SaaS CRM, etc.
On the other hand, #5 above is a harder case (for me) to relate to Freebase. Contributors to CRM content in this context might want to discuss CRM:
• in applied examples,
• with reference or academic research,
• as business practice or policy,
• with reference to related practices or concepts such as customer service, IMC or organisational consumer orientation,
• and so on.
From this list I find it particularly hard to envision how academic or theoretical perspectives and content will combine with, or be isolated from, applied business content or 'lay-persons' content.
A related and more concise question: Where content refers to a related but non-central area of theory, how will types or tags help people interested in researching that second subject find the bit of relevant content within the first? (ie: how will types or tags aid searches for ‘consumer orientation’ to locate relevant content existing under CRM types and tags? Will full-text search actually be the relevant tool in this instance, instead of types or tags?
Perhaps CRM is a poor example to discuss this confusion, because we might not often discuss CRM as a purely theoretical or experimental subject. The other example I mentioned previously, involvement theory, might be more clear.
As I mentioned, involvement theory might be associated with types such as 'attention', 'product interest', 'hierarchy of effects', 'brand awareness', and so on. But the main words are probably 'involvement' and 'theory'.
Freebase content about advertising might contain reference to involvement, for example re ad design targeting certain types of involvement identified in target audiences.
But involvement discussed in an academic context can be quite distant from the practice of advertising – and far more complex.
My confusion is, again, concerned with separating the academic from other uses of a concept. This might arise in any subject area or discipline; if I want to post complex research-based information, the appropriate place might not be on a page where the subject is discussed generally or is shown as a smaller element of another subject. If someone looks for ‘cognitive involvement’ they might ideally find reference to types including ‘advertising’ and ‘theory’, but where does the content meet for a user?
--> Perhaps, simply, ‘theory’ will be a useful type? A problem might exist here, though, because if academic and practical / general information tends to share the same pages, then virtually everything will bear the type ‘theory’ and all Freebase content might evolve as a muddle of the simple and the complex in content and perspectives.
Does that make any sense, or am I leading myself down a pointless maze of thinking?
If you are still with me, thanks!
Cheers,
Ken

sgmils: populating the business domain

2007-08-15T00:15:53.0007Z

Hi Ken, welcome to Freebase! The type system in Freebase is best suited for representing clearly defined "is a" relationships: Ken is a Person, Australia is a Country, etc. More loosely defined "tag" relationships are potentially useful, though, and we're currently thinking about the best way to facilitate that. Patterns noticed in these looser "tags" could then be evolved by the community into full type schemas. Is this the sort of thing you were thinking of? Also, you should feel very free to experiment with your own type creations in your user domain -- you can "publish" the ones you want to show to the world. I'm interested to know more about what you're envisaging, so please let me know what your thoughts are (we can continue the discussion on the Business domain page).

sgmils: populating the business domain

2007-08-14T19:21:42.0000Z

Hey, Ken. Great questions. I'm going to huddle up with the business admins and see if we can pull together some answers. Stay tuned.

sgmils: Are type administrators notified of a comment?

2007-08-14T19:19:34.0007Z

Hey, Jeff. As of today, we have two imperfect systems for making sure admins see comments in their domains. First, we have crude internal tools that let us see activity on the site, including discussions. Admins generally keep an eye on those. Second, I keep an eye on the discussions and the admins, pointing out questions or suggestions in their domains that have gone for several days without reply. We get to nearly everything--so your comments should attract replies--but I'll be the first to admit that we're not at 100%, particularly when a comment or question doesn't have a straightforward answer. So if you've posted and haven't gotten a reply after a week, consider reposting.

I'll add that we are working on two features that'll help everyone keep on top of discussions. Before long, we'll have RSS feeds for them, and we're also cooking up an admin dashboard that'll help people keep on top of all activity in their area/s of responsibility.

Hope that helps!

sgmils: Are type administrators notified of a comment?

2007-08-14T02:31:56.0011Z

Hi again Sarah. Since you've been so helpful, might I ask another question. If I post a discussion comment for a type, do the type/domain administrators get notified, for example on their Freebase home page? Or do I have to hope that the administrators sooner or later get around to examining the discussion pages for their types?

sgmils: populating the business domain

2007-08-14T02:13:29.0004Z

Hi Sarah,
I've been looking at content in the Business domain. My areas of interest and knowledge might be characterised under types such as 'theory' and 'practice', but I'm not sure what types do or should be created to give structure to information like this in the domain. Perhaps you have some thoughts?
For example, customer relationship management (crm). Although there is a bit of (poor, wiki-imported) content listed for this subject, the subject has no types associated with it. Where to begin with envisaging a set of types that will help to make content in a domain like this to be navigable and logical?
Another example, based on one of my 'pet' areas of thought: Involvement. It is obviously a general word with endless possible meanings or attributions. In my case I would be referring to a specific body of theory relating to consumer behaviour and psychology, falling logically under many broader headings such as (ordered toward broader, less specific possible types) 'attention', 'product interest', 'heirarchy of effects', 'brand awareness', 'communication theory', 'consumer behaviour', 'advertising', 'marketing - theory', 'marketing - practice'... this brief example could go on and on and also would span several domains.
Could you share any ideas or comments about how types are going to evolve to help clarify content that often will span across business practice and academic thought?
Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
Ken Thomas

sgmils: Links in comments?

2007-08-03T05:44:52.0007Z

Thanks Chris for the help

sgmils: Links in comments?

2007-08-03T02:18:09.0008Z

Jeff, it’s not the most user-friendly thing in the world, but you can just use a subset of HTML in its raw form in the comment editor.

—Chris

sgmils: Links in comments?

2007-08-03T01:15:59.0011Z

Hi Sarah. Thanks for the quick reply to my question on the Biology page. When I post my question I want to put in the neat links that I see in other people comments. But when I click Reply, my edit window doesn't have the usual toolbar to let me put links in the text. How do you do that? (Do you folks use a special editor that not in the reply window on the web page?)