Live CEOing Ep 733: Design Review of Data on Leaders & Organizations

Foreign. Okay. Hello everyone. We are doing a Wolfram language design review about leader data, a feature long been in Wolfram Alpha. And we are trying to kind of streamline it enough to put it into the language.

So, right, just up front, like I said in the notes, the names of entity types and names that are being used for entities are not at all preliminary and not at all thought to be good things. But they're descriptive at least of what they're, what they represent. And I think we just, we want to talk a little bit about the overall schema and ways that these things are being represented, but also kind of what we're calling these things because the idea ultimately is not that, you know, the problem we're trying to solve is not just how do we represent leaders of countries in the language, it's how do we represent any person who has held a position within an organization that could be a government organization. It could be a private, public, public company, anything else for a specific tenure in that position.

Does LinkedIn canonicalize, You know, position titles in any way or is it free form?

I think it's pretty free form. They may suggest some things. I mean, we've seen this with other sources of data for corporate executives where some, some sources do some level of trying to canonicalize. You might have someone who's the, whatever, they're the chief imagination Officer, but really they're in charge. They're a marketing executive.

Right. Yeah.

Standardizing those kinds of things. But not, not everybody. Yeah, not everybody does that, will. Yeah.

Hopeless. I mean, you know, just like somebody could be a grand Vi in a company or something. Right, The. Okay, all right, okay. So organization, position, type. Well, I mean, what we just said makes it sort of seem hopeless because, you know, what happens to the chief Imagination officer? Does the chief Imagination Officer get a tag of this type or they merely a, you know, a C level executive or something and then the rest is free form.

They could be. I mean, I, you know, we're kind of jumping straight to an edge case like most, most people, certainly people within government positions tend to be easier to standardize because you want to have sort of equivalent things across different governments within companies. People want to have, for the most part, standardized titles because people want to know. Well, people move between companies and kind of want to know things. People get cutesy about it sometimes, but.

Yeah, I know, but I mean, look, I don't understand. In the case of countries. Yeah, there are probably some, you know, like a CEO is a concept because it has, it's, you know, part of The API of the company is ultimately, there's somebody in charge, so to speak.

Right, right.

And you know, the cfo, similarly, ultimately there's a person responsible for reporting certain things, and that's part of the company API, but some of these other things. And similarly with countries, I think there's ultimately, you know, somebody has to, you know, sign for the country or whatever.

Right.

And so there are sort of API compatible positions then. You know, I know in England, I don't know, there are positions like. I think there's one. The keeper of the wool sack, which is some kind of parliamentary position which surely doesn't exist in any other country. I can't remember what on earth it meant, but I mean, we could very.

Well have a lot of those kinds of things that are organization and country or government specific, but that we also. They must fit into some kind of category somewhere. Like there's some level of.

Yeah.

Generalization we can do. You know, somebody. Somebody is there. They're a legislator. They're a. They're a cabinet officer.

I agree. Or a C level executive, for example.

Right, exactly.

Yeah, right. But I mean, my point is that the actual name of the position, you know, Grand Poobar of whatever could be as free form, probably as the human name. And I'm just suggesting that that's a. That, you know, what we could do is have something where we allow the possibility of having a Grand Poobah, you know, type title, but we also have this kind of canonicalized position. Type.

Right. So for.

For.

For a particular. Right. For a particular person. For. For someone where we're representing this person in this position with this organization in this time that would be associated with a, A general. A standardized type, but they might also have some property that is the freeform.

Yes. Name.

Which would not. Which. That. That name. You're not going to canonicalize all of those things, but we still want to be able to display what the name is.

Exactly.

Okay. Yeah, that makes sense.

All right. What happens in the world of the future? I'm sorry, I. I just can't avoid this kind of question. In the world of the future, where we have, you know, transgender monarchs and we have a king and we have a queen, and then we have to have a. A, you know, a, A non binary. I should have said non binary. When we have a non binary, what on earth does one do then? Loads. We probably don't want to. You know, this is the point that this particular thing. There's an API, it's the monarch. Whether the monarch is non binary. Or not is irrelevant to the API if I'm making sense.

Right. I mean I, I, these, these kinds of titles don't have anything to do with gender. Gender and things like that will live at the level of the person, not at the level of.

No, I, I realize that but as soon as you say King. Yeah, I'm just, I'm just saying most of these are non gendered. That one.

True, it's, that's true.

But, but I'm al. Also, I'm concerned that any given king is probably, you know, king, you know, oganog of the such and such. Such and such and then probably has, you know, titles that go for two lines, you know, conqueror of the such and such, etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It's true.

But I mean that look, these are sort of API level. You know, there is a role like a chairman of a board has certain external API functions, so to speak. Yeah, see, I worry about a title like, you know, then there's kind of cheat titles like Senator and you have some, you know, high school debating competition or something where somebody gets that title.

Why is this, how, how does this enter into the picture for us?

Well, because I'm, I'm thinking that if we start picking up who are all. Oh, I see. Because that, then the, the organization to which, that of which that person is the a senator then becomes the high school thing, not the us or something.

Yeah, right. These, these, these things are independent of any connection to a specific.

All right, okay, but, but each one of these defines some kind of, is sort of intended to be an API describing thing.

Yes.

As opposed to the actual name on the letterhead, so to speak.

Correct.

Okay. Okay, I understand. Okay. So then there's the status, which, and.

Again, these are, this is just kind of stuff that has been pulled in without trying to think about how we use it. From Leader Data, where we've, we've applied these sort of tags which really only serve a, I think Rodrigo Cesar like they, they have only really served a purpose for the visual representation in Alpha where we've got someone who's in a position and we've wanted to say they're not really the full official thing. So we slap an acting tag on it. And some of these, I have no idea when they've even appeared. They're odd things throughout history.

I'm sure they can appear. I mean, you know, an interim CEO, an interim prime minister. These all look quite reasonable to me. I mean there's a calculus of these things. Presumably, you know, can you be a Resigned, Retired regent, Maybe.

I'm not, I'm not, not sure where those would fit into what we're describing because the, you know, the, can you.

Be a deceased interim.

I don't know. I, I, that's, that's why I'm saying I'm not sure where, how these have actually been used in the past. I mean, I, Things like interim elect acting like these are things that can be used to describe this more precisely the status of a person's position at any point in the past. Like someone was the interim Poobah from 1984-87. Someone was the acting vice president. But they, you know, if you're deceased, it's pretty open ended. I don't think status, I don't think.

You can be an active deceased, whatever. I think deceased doesn't necessarily fit here.

I, I think, I think some of these are just, they, they may have been useful tags and we, they just ended up.

The only one that looks wrong here is deceased.

Because I'm not what, retired or terminated. Like if they're retired, then they're not, they didn't actually.

Well, they could be an emeritus something or other.

Right.

That's a perfectly reasonable.

Yeah, you're right. You're right. Fair enough.

Okay.

So then, and they're, it's not just like they are no longer in that position. They, they have that position, but that's an additional.

Right.

I think. You know, somebody calls themselves. Yeah.

Brigadier General even if they haven't been in the military for 40 years or something. Right. So that is a position that they have, but it is retired, so to speak. I think.

I just don't know if we would, we would represent that in what we're trying to describe. Like if someone was Brigadier General from X to Y, we have something that says so and so was Brigadier General from X to Y. Then do we have another entity that represents them as retired Brigadier General from. I don't know then until the end of their life and then they become deceased.

But I think, you know, you can be an emeritus professor. Sure. And you can, I think you can quit being an emeritus professor. It's not a lifetime, you know. I mean, can it, can a university terminate somebody from being an emeritus professor? I don't really know.

I mean, if there, if, if yes, that's a position.

An emeritus professor. Sorry. Is a position. And in fact, emeritus may be more relevant than retired because retired is more of a, I mean, emeritus is actually a, a maintained position. You know, the emeritus chairman of some company or something.

I think that's, that's what I'm after. Like if, if the, anything that just says I used to be this thing.

Yeah, that, that.

Then, then it doesn't make sense if it, if it means I still retain some of the privileges and responsibilities or power whatever of this position. Okay. Then it's.

Yeah. Don't.

Slightly qualified.

Right. Organization position type needs a vice chairman. Those are rather common.

Right?

Oh, there's that.

I mean there's, there's many more things that need to be in here. This is just trying to work with a manageable scope at first.

Okay. All right.

Yeah.

See, organization position.

Then this is, this is the combination of position with a specific organization. So this is where you have, you know, I see specific center, senator, specific president.

Wow. What happens when it gets down to, you know, high school, you know, parent, you know, parent association president of some random high school somewhere? We definitely don't want an entity for every single one of those, do we?

I mean, surely we want to have that fear. Theoretically we could because I mean, that's the other thing. Like, certainly this data wouldn't be easy to come by for all these things, but it would exist somewhere like that. The link to that info box for president of Italy. You know, the, the specific. Any, any given position within an organization. There will be some other set of things like who, how are, how are they elected or appointed to the position. You know, what is, what is the standard term length, what's the salary, what's the.

Right, but I mean, but it seems to me that rather than having a single entity here, that we should factor Italy president type thing rather than. Or is that wrong? I mean, look, are we really going to have district 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, whatever it is? That seems very crazy. I mean, we don't have.

And what are. And I'm not trying to argue the point, but then what, what is the representation of the thing? I mean, we, we can have implicit entities things. But you know, I'm just. As we were talking about this recently, the point was for most of these kinds of things, there are, there are properties that are. That can be specifically associated with these combinations of an organization and a position within that organization. So like Louisiana way of getting to the list of people who have held the position.

Right, but I mean, you're saying that a Louisiana 3 Rep. District 3 representative or something might have different properties from a New York one because, you know, laws are different there or something, Is that what you're saying? So this is not compositional, that it's just a place A representative. Do we have a. I mean, New York District 18. Do we have an entity for that?

Sure.

So we have. Okay. All congressional districts. Yeah, have. But. So I see. Oh, I mean, does it.

I realize like that the scope is potentially very large.

Well, but, but okay. But it could also be the case that, You know, from New York District 18 representative. One of the properties should be. What thing are you. You know what. What thing does this position relate to? Answer. New York District 18.

Right. That's. I mean, that's. That's the bullet point. That's right below where your cursor.

Okay.

There should be. There should be other properties here. This. We were just talking about this. This wasn't exposed before last week and we were saying this seems like something that we should consider having directly and talking about.

Well, that's position type. But where's Italy here? It's not.

That should also. That's what I'm saying. It should. There should be additional properties, whatever the associated region, organization, whatever.

Well, I mean, these very long entity names. So what are these? These are.

This is. That's an organization. Position, tenure.

Right.

It's the. The organization, the position, the person and the specific period. Because you could have. I never remember who. The presidents and any. Well, anybody who's had.

Multiple times.

Yeah, like Putin. Sure.

Yes.

You wouldn't want to have a list that's just.

Right. I mean, just in terms of visual appearance.

Oh, yeah.

Better way to do this. Maybe make this. At least. At least this will be more easily parsed if this was somehow smaller or something like that.

I mean, we could. We could. We could use. Do the dates as what's. And. Or anybody. What's the. What's the. The extra field that we use where we have the gray tags like the sense tags or style.

Yeah.

Sub labels. We could do that. We also could, you know, just to simplify this, because the specific dates aren't necessarily significant unless it's. It's a very short tenure. We could also shorten these to just kind of year to year or month. Year to month.

Year.

I'm not sure the full date spec. Is that useful for kind of understanding what you're looking at in all these cases?

Yes, I agree. Except that. Oh, no, that person. Okay.

Yeah. Right.

No, I mean, there might be one.

Somebody who's in office for a day or.

Yeah. But. But by the time it bounced that they were in office for a day, out of office for a week, in office for a day. That is such an unbelievably corner case.

Right.

That I wouldn't be too upset by having the visual appearance. Just say 1955 to 1962 or something. And then if that's 1955 and they were in office twice in 1955 in that same position. Well, corner case. Right.

Well, I mean, if there's some. If there's somebody in between, they're gonna. They're gonna be separate entities. Right. You're gonna have a separate one of these to represent each.

No, I know, I know, I know. But I'm saying in terms of the visible name.

Yeah.

The fact that it says 1955, the both of them. I think it's such a corner case.

Yeah.

I wouldn't worry about it. I wonder whether they'll even be a single example of it in the same position, so to speak.

Yeah.

Yeah. That will definitely make it simpler to just have the. The.

Right.

I would also argue that that one of these could be italic or something like that. Like the position name could be italic. Then the person's name.

Yeah.

I don't know what. Something.

No, we can we go to. Go to design and talk about some different. Whether we can factor those out in the names and get some different styling. Jurisdiction is a horrible night. Yeah. Like I. Because they're going to be positions where it's. It's not necessarily that you have.

It's. What are you, the leader.

Yeah. Area of influence or something like that.

Sphere.

Yeah. Sphere of influence is probably better. Yeah.

But I mean, sphere of influence, if you're the chief imagination officer or the grand vizier of. Of the whatever of a company, who knows what the. It's. I mean, almost domain.

Well, that's right. I mean, that's what I'm kind of wondering when you get into cases like. Secretary of Education, Secretary of Defense, or, you know, chief marketing officer or something.

Of the United States. So what is the United States in that case? It's not the jurisdiction. It's the. It's the. It's more like the entity. But we can't use that word. Leadership.

Well, it's also. I mean, that they're also, you know, in charge of. They have some. Some responsibility for the Department of Defense. But also more abstractly for.

Yes.

Like a specific. Yeah.

There'll be people who report to that position.

Right.

But there is also. Yeah. What is the domain of responsibility of the position? I mean, domain of responsibility.

What are you. What are you thinking?

I'm thinking that jurisdiction becomes domain and that then there is a different property that potentially represents, you know, led organization. So to Speak. Which could be Department of Defense. In other words, the domain will be United States. The lead organization would be Department of Defense, Department of Defense. See what I'm saying?

Yeah.

So, for example, Chief Marketing Officer might have a domain that is the company and a lead organization that is the marketing department. The chief Imagination officer might have a domain that's the company and a department of zero.

Yeah.

It's purely imaginary, for example.

Sure.

So, okay. I mean, because most positions will say it is a. It is the chief financial officer of. Blah, blah, blah. What are we going to do with companies? I mean, there's a zillion companies. How are we going to get. Which change their names and have different tentacles and so on? We're not going to smoosh the.

You.

Know, CFO of General Motors this time. I guess we have to. I mean, in this. In this.

And we have to. Because if, I mean, if a company changes its name, you're not. You don't want to have something that represents someone in the past was CFO of a company that no longer exists in the way it did.

Then what if the company. I mean, which happens with companies more so than countries. What happens if the company changes its name but the person continues to be CFO? They're.

Well, what would LinkedIn show? They would. They would probably have a break in their resume there, wouldn't they?

I don't know. All the people who were now at X, what do they show on their linkedins? I bet that. That shows. I bet. What happened?

Did they just retro? Well, it's whatever Elon told them to do.

I don't know.

They just retroactively change their history to.

X. Yeah, I think what happens is that the company name canonically changes and that changes all the history, If that makes sense. No, there's nothing that says it was, you know, Facebook, for example. Then it gets renamed Meta and, you know, it doesn't show as CXO of Facebook then CXO of Meta. It just changes the name from, you know, even going back before Facebook was called Meta. It changes that name, Which is probably what we should do too. Oh, my. This is complicated. Well, that's our excuse for waiting a decade to get it done. Okay, So. So wait a minute. So let me just understand. Did. I mean, we've got all these. And these entities have been successfully exported into the language here, and we've got thousands of these things, Right?

Right. Yes, there are. There are many more that could be. Because we also have the case with the existing leader data in Alpha, where we have. We still have a lot of quote unquote leaders who do not have a corresponding person, entity, more historical people, because the sources were, you know, just have lists of names of people. And we've, we've filled those in and tried to align them to existing people and added people as we go. And we've been doing more of a pass to try to match those up. And where we can't match them up, we're just, we need to create person entities, even if the only thing we can definitively say about them is they were. They had this position with this country from these.

So you're saying we have an entity for, you know, king of the Scythians or something, these dates, but we don't know who that was or.

Well, we have a. We have a name, we know we have its king, whatever Red or something. Right. But we don't have birth percent places and rights. Exactly.

Because we know nothing about Fred other than that he was king of the Scythians or something.

Correct. But at this point, I think we're, we're. We can do a little bit more to try to match those people up and see if we can find more data. And if we can't, then we say, you know, we definitely don't have someone lurking in people data who we've failed to align to. So we're just going to create an entity for them and, you know, they'll have a name and we will know that they were king of the Scythians from these dates to these dates. And that might be the only thing that we can show about that person. Entity. But that's okay?

Yeah, I think so. Okay. Okay. All right. So then, I mean, I'm a little concerned about things where the title, you know, I'm sure when Napoleon showed up in France, his official title was different from. Well, I mean, you know, the, you know, the CEO of France was at one point a king and later on a president and probably went through some random weird stuff at some point.

Right.

But if we want to know.

You.

Know, let's say we ask a question like, how old was the leader of France? You know, at what age were leaders of France sort of installed through history? I mean, this again comes back to the, the API question. There is a person who is. Who counts as the leader. There might or might not be a person who counts as the minister of information, say.

Correct. And so there'd be specific positions that on a country by country, organization by organization basis, we have to say this is whatever in this period the emperor was counts as the leader. You know those other kind of higher level position types. In this period it was the president. In this period it was the whatever.

So we've also been able to. Yeah, I mean in the linguistics of alpha we've also had these kinds of issues. Right. So I mean. Yeah, to me what we're coming back to is there is an API level position. You know, who is the chief executive of blah. Could be a state, the governor, could be a country, could be an emperor, could be a whatever. You know that's a pretty well defined thing. Perhaps there is a second fiddle of the chief executive. Not always true. Right, right. For, for countries it's usually true.

I mean it's also. It's another thing at the organization position level that can be described which is for, you know, where does the vice puba sit within the hierarchy of positions in this.

Yeah. If it's known if they've even defined it. I mean, you know, in some places they're not going to publish their org chart or people would start shooting at each other.

No, but in many, in many cases there's, there's a, there's a chain of command and reporting and related responsibilities that we can represent.

Yeah. Elsie on our livestream comments that there are some roles defined by legislation. Absolutely right. So you know, in the US companies have to have a president, a treasurer, a secretary. I think. I wonder what.

That's also yet another thing that can be a property of the organization position. Like what, what is the legal statute or document or whatever else that that defines.

Yeah, that's right. That's a good point.

Position.

The Constitution for example or whatever.

Right.

And presumably should know this. Right. This is a piece of American. What is in a, in a US State. What is the analog. I mean, you know the, the fact that there's a lieutenant governor and this and that and the other for a state must be defined by some sort of constitution of the state type document.

There are, there are states, states, constitutions.

Oh yeah.

Okay.

Thank you. I've only lived in this country for I don't know, what 40 something years. Okay, so. Right, so that's a good point. That in a sense every company in the US for example has certain is, you know, there's kind of a stem cell for every company which is the thing that you have to file with the secretary of state in whatever state the thing is incorporated. I assume they're all the same. I don't know whether with respect to positions and I haven't a clue for companies in Other countries, I don't even know. I don't know for even for a UK company, I don't even know what, what positions are mandatorily required. Okay. But I think what we're, what we're learning is. There are, you know, like, like for instance, the, you know, for many purposes, the. See, again, it relates to this API question. There are many purposes for which it's important to know who is the chief executive. Maybe it's important to know who is the chief money person. Maybe it's important to know who's the chief computer security person. These are all kind of, you know, it used to be the webmaster type thing. Oh, boy. Well, I'm, I'm just. I see. So. So there is potentially another kind of thing here, which is the regulatorily defined organization type. In other words, it is a US Company, therefore it has a this and a this and a this. It is a. You know, that, that seems like a worthwhile thing to have. And perhaps in some cases, I'm sure the UN and the World bank have certain kinds of, you know, if you're standing up a new country, there are certain positions that you need to. If you. Well, you're not going to be a member of those things immediately. But presumably if you are a member of those things, there are certain elements. Like if you're a member of the un, you presumably have to have a UN representative. I mean, so that's a different thing, which is you've got an organization and like, it's a member of the.

You.

Know, International Telecommunications Union. I'm quite certain that you have to have a representative for that organization from your country, so to speak. Right. Yeah. And, Yeah, I mean, there are things which are a little bit fuzzier like, like Chief Computer Security Officer, which is, you know, for which people sometimes ask for, you know, who is your. Blah, blah, blah. That one is not. I mean, that one is sort of a fuzzy one in terms of, of, I mean, you know, people who are pitching one on things will say, you know, who's your chief. Who's your chief photocopier officer or something. That's kind of passe these days. But, you know, that, that was a thing back in the day.

You're talking about things where someone isn't. Doesn't have that as a specific. That's not their official title. But it is a role that they.

No, actually, I was that different thing. No, I was, I was, I was yackerating on about. About weird cases.

Okay.

But I think for our purpose.

You.

Know, the question is what are you going to want to compute from these things? And. You know, sometimes it's very well defined, like, You know, you should be able to look up, You know, I've got this bill, it was sponsored by this person. Here is the, you know, here is the entity associated with that person in that position. I mean, that's an interesting case because let's say it's a bill sponsored by person X. They can only sponsor a bill if they're in a certain relevant position, presumably.

Right, right.

If they just got thrown out of Congress or whatever, they don't get to sponsor a bill.

Right.

On the other hand, that bill, I don't know. Presumably there's a moment at which they submit it as sponsored and then it may come back again multiple times even after they are in a different position, so to speak. You know, they get reelected, so to speak. Although that for us is still they, they could get discontinuously re elected. But I mean the submitter of the bill is a person in that position, not just a person, presumably.

Right.

Well, what other things are we going to want to compute? I mean, then we're going to want to compute all kinds of network type things like. Now here's a question. Yeah, it's a question. What are we doing with family relations.

Brian? How do we figure out what to do with family relations?

What's that?

I said we're trying to figure out what to do with family relations. They're not, they're not represented in a very scalable way. Right now we just kind of, we have parents and siblings and children. But you know, there's other kinds of relationships and again like decorators on those connections that can be significant.

Right.

And we don't have a, we don't have a way to sort of explore the graph of things efficiently.

But so, so for example, here's, here's an example of something that we should be able to do given leader data and given family relations data. Show the graph of the relations between the, you know, kings and queens of Europe type thing.

Sure. I mean there's all kinds of things. You want to look at the, look at the, the sequence of 10 years in a particular position or in positions across a range of countries and look at how often people went in and out of office. We should have more political party information associated with leaders and matching that up to economic trends and other kinds of things. I mean, following individual people and their connections to other people within other kinds of organizations, government and otherwise. There's lots of connections to other Domains to work with here. Right.

Okay. So I mean like the distribution of times in office of, I don't know, Secretaries of state, for example. Sure should be a trivial thing to figure out, right? Is it right now?

I don't think so. I don't think we have, I don't think we have everybody pulled over from leader data yet. I'm not sure we have all of the people who have ever held any of the positions we represent in this framework right now, except for maybe some things like presidents of the US and some high level things.

All right, what other things do we have to resolve in this meeting? I mean this looks like it's going in a reasonable direction, but it seems like, I mean.

No, that's good. I mean I, I for this, for this one. I think just wanting to get this in front of you and have you thinking about the structure and just saying yeah, all right, well naming and naming in general. This looks like it's going the right way. We can, we can continue to put some more things in. Leroy had just started to add and I think Lisa was helping to work on some of the parsing for some of the things related to companies. We don't have enough. We have, there's a couple of examples of companies and it's not enough to really explore how that's going to work, but some of these questions about specific positions versus sort of generic levels and types of positions. I think we're going to be able to get some more examples in so we can talk about what.

Let's. Let me just mention a can of worms. Okay. Co CEOs.

Okay.

How do we deal with that? We just put two people in or maybe co presidents of countries for all I know. I don't know if that's ever happened.

Well, but then they maybe if they had exactly the same start and end dates and one of them didn't assassinate the other one while they were. No. Or would they, would it need to be something that's represented again as two separate.

Well, I mean I guess I don't.

I guess I don't immediately see why it wouldn't be too separate. Yeah. Position.

It just happens that there isn't a uniqueness just like there might be, you know, five congress people from such and such a state or something.

Sure. I mean if you, if, if you were doing a lookup for the president of whatever country from date to date, it could very well return two people. There would be two separate leaders who have.

Yes. It could return zero as well. Yeah.

Of course.

In chaos. And nobody Was in charge.

Right. I. I believe Bosnia has three presidents that rotate. Something like that.

Which country?

Bosnia. Bosnia Herzegovina.

You mean rotate as in and successive weeks or something or what?

Months or years or something? I don't know. I remember when we did little data. It was a long time ago.

Well, I mean, didn't. Didn't have. Have people who were in for a day. Sorry, didn't ancient Athens have. Have people who were like in for a day? Didn't they rotate through different. Different people who were kind of. I thought they did.

I feel like Lisa Wages should be. Yes. Do you have any knowledge about drawing a. It sounds familiar, but I'm drawing a blank on the specific practice. I don't think it was the archons.

No.

Basil Archon maybe.

I think only the data we had. We usually kept talking about the co Princess of Pandora because I think the president of France already is always listed as one of the. Of this position. Pretty much.

Wait a minute. So what happens in Andorra?

One of the quote unquote co Princess of Andorra is the president of France and the other one, I think it's a bishop.

Yeah. From Spain.

Well, there are lots of different things that will happen. Yep.

So in that case, usually what we did on leader data was that the end. Start and end of the tenure is stored in the information of the tenure itself for this person. That's how we usually handle to have many people in. In the same position. So like for instance, a military junta, many people, many generals, so to speak. They all have different started end date. Pretty much.

Yeah. Right. But, but so the basic point is in, in these cases it is you just have multiple people who all. I mean, there's a different entity for each tenure, so to speak. And a tenure includes both position and dates and the person.

Correct. Yes.

So that doesn't seem problematic. So I'm. I'm retracting my complaints about CO CEOs. I mean, it is a little weird that it's like, you know, in most. I mean, just wait until we have to represent holacracies. You know, this idea of having an organization where instead of a hierarchical organization, it's a collection of intersecting circles of responsibility. I believe Zappos the shoe company had it set up, had itself set up that way for a while.

Oh my God, you're right. And there's some blockchain companies as well.

Indeed. Indeed. I think holocracies don't get to be represented much. I mean, in any way we're probably not going to have the data on them. So okay, well, let's see. What else should we make sure to figure out here?

I think this is probably good feedback for now. I think there just before we proceeded with fleshing out some more properties and just bringing more data in here and aligning people and working on the company side of this. I think that's good. If this is generally seems sensible, then there's more. We can go ahead and get in quickly and come back and talk about some of that. The company stuff will be useful to have another conversation soon because that's where we get into.

Some of the things.

We started off with the specific versus general types of positions and how we're representing and querying for things. Sorry.

Okay. I mean, the other issue is the org charts of like, let's say the US Government or something like this, which we have not discussed here. Like, what is the position reporting to a given position?

Correct. I mean, I'm not sure we're in a. We are in a position to want to go too far down anybody's org chart right now.

Yeah, well, also there's this horrifying, you know, matrix management type thing of people who are. Yeah. Could get very messy.

Right.

All right. Well, good. Okay.

Some great.

Some progress.

Thanks a lot. Good. So we can kick off and move a little quicker on some building out some more of this.

Looks good to me.

Great.

Right. See you all. Thanks to folks in Live Stream. See you all. Bye.