Architecture

Architecture: Time-series building function

2008-08-20T10:08:21.0012Z

I agree.

I have even thought if it would be good to have a valid time range for all relations by default. For example a name of a person can change. The area of a location(city , country, ...) can change(city is growing; war). The "Contains, Contained by, Adjoins, ..." of a Location can change over time (war, ...).

IMHO, The current data scheme does not reflect the fact that everthing is in constant flow and everything is changing over time.

I know there exists facts which do not change over time. For example a parent of a person will probably always be a parent of this person. But many of the relations currently in freebase will change if time passes, not because they are wrong - because reality will change.

Just some thoughts,

Ralf

Architecture: Time-series building function

2008-08-20T05:46:49.0017Z

Building function changes over time. See Hyde Park Barracks for an example -- the blurb covers most of the building uses so you can compare with what I set in the property.

Could we turn building function into a CVT with start/end dates, please? I'm using topics like the above in a personal domain about a certain period of history (convict-era Sydney) and it looks very odd from the domain POV to have all the uses there without explanation. See this view for an example

Museum: Address?

2008-07-15T17:40:43.0005Z

I'd suggest that the governing body, the 'museum' and the 'venues' are all different types.

Take where I work, for example. The legal entity is called 'National Museum of Science and Industry' (NMSI) - but that's not actually a museum in the sense that anyone would understand it.

Then there are the 'museums' owned by NMSI: The Science Museum, National Media Museum, National Railway Museum. These are the museums as people understand them.

Then there are the venues. So for instance the Science Museum has its main venue on Exhibition Road, plus another venue in Swindon (which is called 'Science Museum Swindon', although the name changes fairly frequently), plus another venue called 'Blythe House', which is only accessible by appointment, and is actually shared with some other museums.

I don't think this kind of complexity is all that uncommon either - 'National Museums Liverpool' is actually half a dozen museums, as is the National Museum Wales.

Museum: Address?

2008-07-14T23:34:58.0000Z

'Venues' are perhaps more appropriate. One museum or family of museums can have multiple venues.

Often people conflate the venue and the governing body (which would also include collections not on display, non-venue/exhibition staff, etc).

Museum: Address?

2008-07-14T18:55:02.0012Z

Perhaps 'Museum' should be moved out of the Architecture domain altogether though - as it's more of a concept than anything else. And you do get museums which aren't physical buildings (eg a museum within a bigger building, or an outdoor garden museum), which span multiple buildings in separate locations (very common) or even museums at all (eg virtual museums, or museums which don't have a physical presence yet).

Museum: Address?

2008-07-14T15:40:01.0013Z

Museum might want to include /architecture/structure as an included type, and a property on structure is mailing address.

Museum: Address?

2008-07-13T22:34:12.0012Z

Should address be removed from this type? I've noticed that this information is often duplicated as museums are normally buildings which have their addressed specified in another field.

Building function: London Underground stations?

2008-07-03T23:14:44.0012Z

What should the building function of a London Underground station be ?

George Massey Tunnel: George Massey Counterflow Lanes - HOW TO MERGE!

2008-06-28T05:30:06.0005Z

When approaching the George Massey Tunnel, if the counterflow lane is open to opposing traffic, you will note that the inside (fast) lane is expected to merge at a certain point. There seems to be much confusion amongst drivers as to how and where to merge. A few hundred yards before you hit the point where an overhead sign clearly reads "Lane Closed", drivers in the approaching fast line are alerted by overhead yellow flashing "X" lights. These are CAUTION lights intended to warn the driver that the lane ends ahead. The lane marked with an overhead flashing yellow "X" is NOT CLOSED. You can drive on this lane up to the MERGE POINT, that being the point at which the lane is marked CLOSED with a RED flashing "X". This is the merge point. You are not to continue driving on this lane past the merge point. Vehicles on the right (outer) slow lane should allow vehicles to merge as per usual procedure at this merge point. The problem is, many drivers do not understand the merge procedure and start pile into the riight outer lane at about the point where the first flashing yellow "X" signal appears on the inner (fast) lane. As a result. there is usually a long line of cars waiting patiently on the slow lane, and that lane of backed up vehicles extends far before the first warning"X". Drivers who are waiting on the outer (slow) lane become agitated when they see other cars driving down the relatively clear fast lane (the one with the yellow flashing "X's"). I have witnessed drivers pull their cars from the slow lane into the fast lane in order to block vehicles fron continuing on the fast lane. This is illegal! They are causing an obstruction in a freeway lane that is NOT CLOSED! Cars on the fast lane are allowed to be on that lane until that point where the lane is marked "CLOSED". A simple rule to follow when mergng anywhere where required is to merge just prior to the point where you can no longer continue in the lane that you are in.

Engineering firm: Type of Project should be Engineering Project.

2008-06-25T17:20:30.0012Z

ah, I see. there aren't that many engineers or firms in the architecture domain, so I'd be happy to "normalize" to a future engineering domain. hey, we really should be having this discussion on the data modeling mailing list. Just click on the "Data" menu above and submit your email in the form to the right.

Engineering firm: Type of Project should be Engineering Project.

2008-06-25T09:16:36.0003Z

Aeronautical engineers work on Aeroplanes, Electronic engineers on iPods etc. etc.
Anyway I have started an Engineering domain to cover this.

Structure: Design Started property?

2008-06-25T07:04:39.0003Z

The exact date tends not to be publicised, but the existence of press releases for planned structures (see Guggenheim Museum Abu Dhabi as an example) tends to precede actual construction by a long time.

Perhaps some incorporation of press releases (as in being a subject matter) might be more appropriate?

Engineering firm: Type of Project should be Engineering Project.

2008-06-25T02:44:34.0018Z

could you elaborate? i don't think this is the case. if the "structure" is a bridge, the engineering firm could be a civil engineering firm, no? anyhow, your comments on engineering firms below are good, can you suggest how you would model it?

Engineering firm: Partners assumes that all Engineering Firms are Partnership

2008-06-25T02:42:09.0020Z

i agree , the language is presumptive. and to and from should be added.

Structure: Design Started property?

2008-06-25T02:40:26.0002Z

this sounds reasonable, but is there really data available? it seems as though the start of design is not often documented.

Engineering firm: Partners assumes that all Engineering Firms are Partnership

2008-06-24T07:22:27.0005Z

A huge number of Engineering Firms are not Partnerships, nor have any of their employees/owners the title of 'Partner'. This is far too presumptive.

Also Partner should have a 'To' and 'From' date.

Engineering firm: Type of Project should be Engineering Project.

2008-06-24T06:33:30.0005Z

Structure confines the Engineering Firm to be a Structural Engineering Firm.

Structure: Design Started property?

2008-06-23T15:32:52.0005Z

Architects and Engineers tend to begin designing a structure years ahead of the beginning of Construction. Could a 'Design Started' property be added?

Architecture firm partner: Partners should have To and From dates

2008-06-23T11:01:32.0005Z

Partners should have 'To' and 'From' dates to represent promotions, new partners, retirals etc..

Architecture firm: Projects not just structure type?

2008-06-22T11:12:18.0005Z

A Masterplan is not a type of structure. Therefore the Projects property of Architecture Firm cannot include Masterplans?

Architecture firm: Includes Company?

2008-06-22T11:09:19.0005Z

An Architecture Firm should include the 'Company' type, or at the very least 'Employer' type.

Any comments?

Union Jack Club: Union Jack club

2008-06-12T00:47:59.0033Z

I am wanting to become an life member of the Union Jack Club, does anyone know if I can pay extra and become an life member?

thanks

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts: Split building from organization

2008-06-04T22:56:52.0012Z

The building and the organization should be separate topics.

Daniel Libeskind: Merge two instances of Daniel Libeskind

2008-05-27T07:39:12.0012Z

Same person. Merge please.

Architectural style: Buildings of this style

2008-03-30T23:20:28.0005Z

Should "Architectural Style" have a property for "Buildings of this style"?

Architecture: Archiportal News: Rudolph Schindler and Bay Area architects too!

2008-03-26T19:24:58.0012Z

Archiportal is a useful way to browse freebase architecture data because it puts the data in its context: on a map. We actually have some pretty cool data in there! The following architects have something close to their complete (existing) works:

Art Institute of Chicago: Merge?

2008-03-11T21:31:30.0018Z

Don't merge -- one is the school, one is the museum

Central Park: mistaken flagging

2007-12-12T06:25:32.0000Z

Hi David:

Sorry for the late reply. We've gone ahead and removed the mark for split flag. We don't have a way for a user to "undo" a mistaken flagging - yet.

Central Park: mistaken flagging

2007-12-05T20:14:21.0012Z

i mistakenly flagged this and can't see how to undo.

William Shakespeare: Shakespeare is not a Location, Film Character, or TV Character!

2007-11-12T20:31:05.0012Z

Hi, I've removed the Location type from this topic and I see that Gordon has done the same with various fictional character types that were added to Shakespeare. At the risk of sounding silly, may I just say that people are never Locations. Real people, alive or deceased, should not be typed Film Character, TV Character or any other fictional character types.

The correct way to model a "Shakespeare" character in a film or TV show is to create a Fictional Character with the same name, link it to the fictional work that applies, then indicate the name of the real person based on whom the character was designed in the "Based on" property of Fictional Character. The real Bard himself (along with other people who exist or existed), on the other hand, should be typed Person Or Being in Fiction instead.

Frank Gehry: No. Keep apart please.

2007-11-12T20:01:36.0012Z

Frank Gehry is not a city called Dundee

Olympiastadion Berlin: Do not merge with "Olympia-Stadion"

2007-11-05T20:15:32.0012Z

The topic "Olympia-Stadion" refers to a U-Bahn station; the "Olympiastadion Berlin" topic is for a sports stadium.

Architecture: Tombs & Monuments

2007-10-26T19:23:04.0007Z

Let's keep sculptures and buildings separate. I know, they're both "built things" in some sense but to be practical we've drawn a line between the two things: arts and crafts and "the built environment" (buildings, bridges, parks, towers)

So my suggestion is, if it's a sculpture within a building, create a separate topic for that thing (even if it's a bas relief that's part of a structural element of the building). If it could be argued that the thing is both a building/structure *and* a sculpture I guess you could type it as both.

as for monument/tomb, perhaps that should be a simple co-type under /architecture (i.e it should be both a structure and a monument/tomb)

/architecture/structure has several properties that impart/imply design attribution: architect, architectural firm, engineer, engineering firm (I suppose contractor, is another one)

this is pretty limiting. e.g. If I designed my own home, I might list myself as the architect of that building in freebase, but that is asserting that I'm an architect, which I'm not.

I suppose I could have a generic property "designer" but that would be a little confusing. In the end, I would rather risk having some false/fuzzy assertions made than add the complexity.

Architecture: Tombs & Monuments

2007-10-25T23:58:57.0012Z

They are definitely a structure, but in the case of Italian Renaissance in particular, Tombs had sculptural elements if not almost free-standing sculptures often executed by a second individual (who was primarily a sculptor and not an architect).

Monuments can be considered to be more of a sculpture/sculptural grouping than strictly a structure

Prime example would be the Funerary-Tombs:

The Medici Chapel by Michelango
Tomb of Antipope John XXIII
Many works within St. Peter's in Rome.

I guess they could be cotyped as sculptures...Or maybe a new type Monument/Tomb?

Architecture: I'm going to create the "Ownership" cvt in a couple of days

2007-10-10T17:31:13.0007Z

this is done.

Architecture: howdy - architectural properties that are for sale

2007-10-08T04:32:00.0011Z

whoops, meant to reply, see new thread below...

Architecture: I'm going to create the "Ownership" cvt in a couple of days

2007-10-07T22:03:25.0021Z

the ownership type:

"architect"
"structure"
"start date"
"end date"

all will be unique, so you will just create multiple ownership objects for each owner (even if 2 people owned it at the same time) The "who paid for it to be built" might sometimes be the same person as the first owner, sometimes not.
Perhaps we could call that the "developer", sometimes it's a person, sometimes it's a company. I'd like to chew on that a little.

A side note: I'm reluctant to start thinking about real estate/legal aspects of this (legal nature of the ownership, prices/fees paid, etc) as that will complicate things (people usually own properties that include land and other buildings which i don't want to model now) The focus is on the historical aspect. Let me know if I'm on the right track, here...

Architecture: howdy - architectural properties that are for sale

2007-10-07T06:19:28.0007Z

I think you're right that the initial client should be separate from the dated list of owners.

Architecture: howdy - architectural properties that are for sale

2007-10-02T19:38:09.0007Z

So it's usually quite significant to have the initial client/owner for a noted or historically significant home/building...Maybe after architect list the client/initial owner. Then further below the owners with period of ownership.

Remodeling with associated architects-client and date would be another item of interest for later on.

Architecture: howdy - architectural properties that are for sale

2007-10-02T04:49:29.0007Z

Then again, look at Kaufman Desert House where there is a list of owners. I think we need the CVT with start/end to clean this up.

Architecture: howdy - architectural properties that are for sale

2007-10-02T04:47:46.0000Z

I think you're right that Owner should be a compound value type that includes at least start and end. Unless of course you want Owner to mean "who paid to have the structure built" in which case there's only one. That seems to be what the data shows now.

Ponds Forge: swimming pool

2007-09-07T22:34:37.0007Z

Hi jamesd (please see my new post on your proposal for the swimming pool type),

I think splitting this topic is the right thing to do. You might consider just doing it manually, as it sometimes takes time for the data team to get to split requests. As for the issue of double typing something, it's not permitted and I think for good reason: think of a type as the semantic assertion "is" and a property as the semantic assertion "has".

So, the object/topic "Ponds Forge" *is* a building complex and a sports facility. The right thing to do here is to create two new and separate objects/topics to represent the two swimming pools. You could call the leisure pool "Ponds Forge Leisure Pool". Then you assert that it *is* a swimming pool by tagging it with that type.

As far as connecting each pool to the facility, if the pool type has a property "Facility" then the leisure pool can points to the "Ponds Forge" topic: you can assert that the pool *has* a facility "Ponds Forge"

I think if you look at types and properties in this way, the idea of double typing an object/topic makes less sense, it just points to the need to split the topic.

Ponds Forge: swimming pool

2007-09-07T17:30:31.0005Z

I marked it for splitting because the swimming pool structure really wants to be a separate topic. (the details are for the main pool but there's also a 25m leisure pool that should be yet another topic grouped into the complex). Hopefully the data can be split without having to re-type :)

Interestingly freebase allows people to enter multiple properties (unless 'Restrict to one value' is ticked) but not multiple types (swimming pool is really a property of ponds forge but there happens to be two of them at this location).

Destruction method: Should there be a 'Weather' destruction method?

2007-06-27T21:23:09.0007Z

Destruction Method pertains to buildings/structures. I'd prefer specific, but it's not a unique property so you're free to say "Flood" *and* "Weather"

Destruction method: Should there be a 'Weather' destruction method?

2007-06-26T01:40:10.0006Z

plague of locusts, rain of frogs, ...

Destruction method: Should there be a 'Weather' destruction method?

2007-06-22T00:48:21.0006Z

How about "things not covered by warranty"? ;) My credit card disclosure calls them "any act of Nature or God". There's a Cause of Death type in the People domain that parallels the Destruction Method for Architecture.

Destruction method: Should there be a 'Weather' destruction method?

2007-06-22T00:34:40.0011Z

Instead of more specific ones like Flooding, Tornado or Hurricane...Though those would work as well.

Architecture: howdy - architectural properties that are for sale

2007-04-11T19:21:17.0006Z

Jack, I apologize for the late reply. We're working on a much better system for following discussion threads, I missed this one.

Do you have any ideas about how this could be modeled? Given that properties go on sale multiple times in their life time, we might want to model it such that the data reflects this history. I'd also like to look at "Owner" for /architecture/structure which currently has an expected type of /common/person but fails to capture other important details (start, end, purchase price)

I look forward to hearing from you on this.

Architecture: howdy - architectural properties that are for sale

2007-04-05T03:04:56.0012Z

I'm planning on doing some work in fb around property and real estate data, and I have especially interested in architectural properties that are currently on the market. (see all properties by this architect that are for sale).

Kurt B. invited me in to do some prototyping in the real estate space, so before I started building in here I thought I would make some noise.

...need to go poke around and see what has been done around "things that are for sale"...

Architecture: some closure

2007-03-01T04:48:25.0012Z

I've added the types "Engineer" and "Engineering Firm." I boldly claim "Structure" as *the* type of the "Built Environment." :) Though some things, such as "Bridge" actually belong to another domain (Transportation) "Structure" is an "included type." All bridges are structures. It is structure that imparts the important properties of attribution: Engineer, Engineering Firm, Architect, Architectural Firm, Contractor. Basic properties such as "Address" and "Opened" and "Height" are also imparted by "Structure."