Re: Question on proposed sports vocab extensions for

What kind of metadata do you want to capture about Secretariet ?  What
sport did Secretariet play ?

Look at the properties within the types themselves in Freebase:


What do Greyhound racing <> and
Horse racing and Formula 1 racing have in common ?  What possible
properties could Kobe
Secretariat <>, Brett
Lee<> (the
greyhound), and Sebastian
Vettel<> share
?  Is Sebastian Vettel an Athlete ?  If Yes, what properties would you
gather under Athlete for him ?  What properties under Athlete would he
share with Kobe Bryant or even Secretariat ?  They are all certainly
Biological Organisms that came from parents. :)

My suggestion:  Start at common properties and then work your way up to a
higher common type that would encapsulate all their shared common
properties on a piece of paper, using those 4 "athletes" or "participants"
or "competitors" as your starting point.  Perhaps they all "race" and have
stats on their "races competed in" and "average lap times", but Kobe
doesn't.  Perhaps they all "play" or "compete" in a Sport ?  That could be
TRUE.  The bottom line, find out what properties you would place under an
Athlete type.  Which properties would you place under a Competitor type ?

I agree that the Sports domain is very large, and worldwide.  I would hope
that the Sports proposals continue to look at the domain always from a
worldwide perspective.

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Paul Wilton <> wrote:

> Hi Thad
> I dont think I agree with that.
> A Person (or an Agent to be more correct) becomes a competitor through
> a relationship with a sporting event (eg sport:Competition in the
> sport ontology, or schema:SportsEvent in - being a
> competitor is temporal for the duration of the event (and of course
> future and historical sporting events).
> Some more examples why vocations should not be subclasses of a Person:
> If we had Actor subClassOf Person, this implies we also need Actor
> subClassOf Horse and Dog  (Black Beauty and Lassie) - which would mean
> that John Wayne (as an instance of Actor) would also thus be a Dog and
> a Horse which is clearly incorrect. The concept of an Athlete is
> exactly the same.
> When we create closed domain models that only work within our domain,
> then you are correct, you can effectively do what you want as you only
> have to make the model work for your own closed domain use-cases.
> However when specifying an open-world model (ontology, schema or
> otherwise) that you expect the world to use, then your model has to
> model the world accurately and work for all use cases and edge cases
> - not just your own.
> In this case, the Athlete subClassOf Person model does not work for
> all use-cases.
> If Athlete was a vocation then this vocation would not be restricted
> just to People so would work for ESPN's use-case.
> kind regards
> Paul
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Thad Guidry <> wrote:
> > My opinion is that Athletes are indeed a sub-type of a Person.
> >
> > You could look at the problem from a different angle as well.  Your
> examples
> > of a horse, robot, etc... would be a different type, such as
> "Competitors".
> >
> > ESPN simply decided to create their own rule of "ALL COMPETITORS ARE
> > ATHLETES".  Nothing wrong with making their own rules within their own
> > namespace, "their website, or TV channel".  My rules would say that "ALL
> >
> > --
> > -Thad
> >


Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 17:39:42 UTC