Difference between revisions of "Wikispooks talk:Semantic Objects"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(How to choose objects)
(Approve place as an object type)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Other Possible Objects==
 
==Other Possible Objects==
* Nation State (Sub-object of [[Group]] is good - associate with a ''place'')
 
* Place
 
 
* Ideology
 
* Ideology
* Company (Sub-object of [[Group]] is good)
+
* Concept (e.g [[Corruption]])
  
 +
===Group Types===
 +
* Company
 +
* Nation State
 
''Exactly how to define sub-objects  is an open question as yet.''
 
''Exactly how to define sub-objects  is an open question as yet.''
 
 
:Agreed your last sentence :-)). I guess there's little option but to grow the 'property tree' like categories - but with the benefit of hindsight and thus a tad more thought.
 
:Agreed your last sentence :-)). I guess there's little option but to grow the 'property tree' like categories - but with the benefit of hindsight and thus a tad more thought.
  

Revision as of 14:17, 2 March 2014

Other Possible Objects

Group Types

  • Company
  • Nation State

Exactly how to define sub-objects is an open question as yet.

Agreed your last sentence :-)). I guess there's little option but to grow the 'property tree' like categories - but with the benefit of hindsight and thus a tad more thought.
The comparison with the category tree is a good one. I take occasional swipes at that, trim off a branch here and there when it has been replaced by SMW markup. Robin (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2014 (GMT)
I also agree that list with people and events at the top of the priority order. Need to be clear about books too. We currently have maybe 100 full books (Category:EBooks) plus assorted book reviews, extracts and synopses. We probably need 'Sysnopsis' as another sub-property of 'Document' too. Re latest email exchange with Joel van der Reijden, I can see me doing lots of those. --Peter P (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2014 (GMT)
I reckon descriptions are the biggest shortfall at the moment. Well, also some important pages to connect the documents, but that cache is where most of the information is, a good wodge of source material. If you've read the document then making a good description can be very easy, so I recommend you work on that - synopses also good as and when, but I suggest descriptions first, now that there are all those empty boxes in the SMWDocs tables. Robin (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2014 (GMT)

Approach to defining objects

I'm just eyeballing looking for how this content can easily be represented semantically. I expect there'll be about 8-10 top level objects. Robin (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (GMT)