Live CEOing Ep 762: Design Review of Data on Leaders & Organizations

Okay. Hello, everyone. We are doing a Wolfram language design review about leader and organization data, something that we have long had versions of Wolfram Alpha, and we are now trying to clean it up to the point where we can expose it in Wolfram language. So where do we start? We've done one review of this already. Right. So this is now.

Yeah, there's. There's a handful of things up front that are just kind of small tweaks that we had made from last time. There's some other work that's been happening in the background that we've still got a bunch of.

Can I make a suggestion?

Yeah, please.

These, I mean, I think having a color difference between. I like this very much. I'm kind of wondering if we should gray down the position.

We talked, we proposed that last time, too, that, that might make sense. Okay.

I just think it'll be easier to read and.

Right. I mean, we could do that. You know, we can do whatever we want in the, the entity boxes with formatting. When you got the, you know, say the name property or apply a common name to that, we're okay with. It's just going to be the string. Nevada Governor James W. Nye.

I guess so. I mean, one thing that I guess can happen is people's effective names can change when they become, you know, King, Google, Woogle or whatever. And before that they were Bob Smith or something.

True.

Right. So is that happening? And, and what do we, you know.

I mean, I. Well, the, the. This, this entity points to a specific person, data entity. And so, you know, we, I see there's, there's an underlying question there about should we have a, should names be a time series? We, we have that in some domains. We haven't really done that for people yet where we indicate, you know, this person was this name until this date and then it changed. Yeah. I mean, for the most part, for these kinds of things, these organization, position, tenure things, I think it's, it's just going to be whatever the name they had while they were in that office. I guess still somebody could change the name while they're in office. But.

Sure, yeah, but I mean, but, but generally itself could define a name.

True.

You know, king so and so would often. Right. Yeah. And I think for this, you know, yellow box exposure, we are going to want to say King so and so, because otherwise it's going to be very confusing if the person was called Bob Smith and then they became King so and so. You know, you're kind of not. Okay, here's another example okay. You know, William Thompson became Lord Kelvin. That's not so much. Now that's a name time series. I mean, there are plenty of, of. There are plenty of people who change their names for all kinds of different reasons, whether it's A. Then there's the kind of people with overlay names like, you know, entertainers who go by, you know, you know, Q or something.

But their real name is state, stage name or pen name, pseudonym or whatever else. Right, right. I mean, generally the way that we handle that in people data is just the, the name by which they most commonly go in whatever their public facing Persona is, is what we use as the just name property. But then we have full name or birth name for other things. And there can be a lot of other steps in between that. That's something else we've been trying to talk about how we represent that. We don't really represent that in a clean way. That someone could have changed their names many times.

Right.

We just kind of have the name they were given and the name that they currently go by or last went by if they're, they're deceased. And then maybe some alternate names that they went by, but without an indication of what time period those referred to. Okay. For these though, I think I, for the most part, I think these are going to be pretty straightforward. But I agree, I think that the making a distinction in these boxes between position and person.

Right. Even in this case. Yeah, yeah. Right. I mean, it's a little weird. It would be Greek Prime Minister would be the. But, but in fact, it's like Nevada Governor. It's not Nevadic Governor or something. Right.

Actually Leroy and I were talking about that this morning. That was a thing that he had brought up where, you know, for a given, like President of the United States is a good example. Like the organization, Position, entity is President of the United States. But when you're, when we're making these boxes, it would be much more common for someone to say US President Joe Biden. And so I think there's also. We want to think about how we construct those. And your point about Greek versus Greece I think is also Greek to me. Sounds more sensible. I wouldn't say, I don't know. Would you say France President or would you say French President?

I would say if we could have separated punctuation or something between France. In other words, if it was. If they were different colors, if it said France Prime Minister or president or.

Whatever you want to break, break, break them down into. Preserve the atomic parts of the things trying to make it a title that we're showing in.

Right. I mean, you know, by the time it's Dutch, Antillian, whatever, or something even more obscure than that. You know, Fiji and whatever. It's not what you want to see. You want to see Fiji, President Blah. Because, I mean, again, think about the US States. What are the adjectival forms of the U. S. States? I don't even know. Illinois. Yeah, that one is. Okay. What is it for? Nevada.

Nevada. Nevada. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Okay.

Right. Or really obscure. Washingtonian.

Okay, it's obscure. I think we can all agree that.

Not if you live in Nevada. You just. Okay, okay, okay.

Fair enough.

Yeah. The.

What. What is it from Massachusetts?

Good question.

I've never heard an adjectival form. So I think we should try and.

Figure out Massachusetts or Massachusettsite.

Great. You know, Massachusett. Governor. Great. The. Yeah, it's obviously silly. Okay, so.

Or there's. Never mind. There's a vulgar form that I won't say. When I was there, everyone would say base stator. Right. Wow.

Okay.

Right.

But we're not going to use that, obviously. So. So let's figure out how we. I mean.

Yeah, so you said you're suggesting a design that. That preserves the separation between.

Yep.

Organization. Or we got three Place.

Yeah, we got the thing like Denny's, for example, down here in the next piece here. You know, president, CEO, director. Yeah, Denny's is one thing. Position is another thing. The person's name is another thing.

Yeah. Okay.

If we needed to, we could have, you know, visible. A visible separator here. Now, what we do in terms of. Of the common name is unclear to me. I mean, I have to say I think a list would be much more useful than a smooshed string. I mean, just like we do for possibly, you know, New York. New York, United States.

Well, although, I mean, I think we. The common name of that is still. It's just a string that has commas in it. You're suggesting actually a. A list of strings.

What is the common name? Let's see, for New York. New York. Is it. Is it still just.

Okay, well, for New York, that. Actually, that's. That's one of those cases where we've. We've were not consistent. Oh. Or maybe we are. No, I guess for the cities, we. We do just use the. The city name. Standard names are all common name. Yeah, but.

You know, this. This one here. I mean, what does that do right now? I don't know. This will work.

It would. It would just be the first part of it would just be. Nevada Governor James W. 9.

I. Well, could be worse.

I mean it's not, it's not terrible. And there, you know, if you, if all you wanted was the person, then you know, there's a, there's a position holder property to get at the, just the person, if that's what you're looking for.

An interesting question whether we should do some kind of nesting of. If you say entity person of this thing, whether it should be the equivalent of position holder. So I'm saying.

Yeah, I mean as a convenience, it doesn't seem like it would be hard to support that.

Okay, let's, let's keep going here. Okay.

Right. Yeah. The, the position type before we had only initially only had this set up with a single position type. And then especially in the case of corporate positions, we're realizing that.

Yeah, sorry, yeah, there's tons of people often have, you know.

Right. And you would, you would want, you'd want to be able to look up, you know, who's the, who is the president or the CEO or whatever. And, and so having these things represented as a list and so below, you know, that's being able to, to construct an implicit entity class on whatever kind of granular position you want. You're going to still get the same person. But then there are also things like the, you know, the lowercase that's, that's stray. That wouldn't, that shouldn't be exposed in the language. That's the sub label property that we use to format the, to inject the dates into the entity box.

Sorry. This disambiguation, I've not seen that before. It seems like a useful thing for us to have in, in. In the properties of some entity and I've just not seen us use that before.

I mean, I, I'm not sure that. I think that's just how the. We have a sub label property that shows up elsewhere. I mean we use that in word senses, I think in some of the species stuff and foods. I, I can't remember if it's exposed as a property or it's really just something that we use as a format.

Nice property to have.

It could be. Yeah. I'm not sure that disambiguation 2022 to present I'm not sure that's a useful property for somebody. And you've got the date. It's just formatting the date information in a different way.

No, I know, but I mean it could be different disambiguation there.

Yes. Yeah, okay, but Then we have also that has things like, you know, the lowercase leader that this one just had redundant ones. Well, but we want to be able to support lookups on things that are not necessarily the, in the list of specific titles that a person holds. Right.

Like what are we going to have? What is that? Is that, is that another entity type, organization, position type? Okay.

I mean, that's, that's the question. We could talk about there being more of a hierarchy of things, but it could also just be. We have a mix of sort of levels of position types. I mean, this could be things like leader. It could be things where there's more of a distinction between head of state and head of government. There are other kinds of, of categories of positions or leadership levels that would make sense to be able to look up.

I understand. And you're saying we have to expose those somehow.

Right.

And the question really is, you know, I'm sure that there are sort of, you know, somebody could have a title, esteemed leader could be their official title. And I think we need to make more of a distinction between, you know, the actual title, right. That CEO or director or whatever else that would appear officially and our descriptor like, you know, chief executive or something, which is a different thing. Right, okay.

Or we touched on that briefly last time. And note further down the notebook, I think, about what, what we do in the long term about weird titles like that. You know, we, we would want to be able, we definitely would want to be able to display the title that a person uses for a given position, but we would also want to kind of normalize those things and have them match up to, to general categories as much as we can.

So my suggestion would be that, that we have things which are official titles, titled positions, so to speak. And then we have sort of generic positions or something, descriptive position title positions and descriptive positions. A title position is, you know, would be on a resume type thing. Right. A descriptive position would be, you know, like Leader, for example, which generally wouldn't be a resume position.

Fair enough.

Now what do we do with positions that are, you know, vice president of Rainy Clouds or something? You know, so these companies that make up these kind of, you know, cutesy sounding titles, where are we putting those?

Chief Imagination, Imagination Officer or something?

Yes, but I mean, much, much even sillier than that in a sense. You know, something like, you know, chief of Plant Rights or something. No, that, that even sounds plants as in chief of vegetable Rights. You know, the companies have, it's gone a little bit out of fashion. Know 15 years ago or something, there was a big. Or maybe 20 years ago, there was a big push, particularly in the tech industry. Right. For. For giving people really, you know, these cutesy titles.

Right.

What do we do with those?

It's a good question. I mean that there's. There's an unspoken thing here, which is that the corporate data is the really hard part of this just to get in the first place. You know, the government stuff, NGO data, anything with other kinds of public organizations, not so hard to get the data for companies that would have a chief plant welfare officer. That's hard to come by. Are you suggesting that it's. It's just a goofy name for an otherwise sensible title?

Not position, maybe. Incomprehensible. What?

Yeah.

You know, there'll be. I'm sure there right now already, like. Like instead of hr, you know, there's, you know, there's head of AI R or something.

Right.

You know, look, it seems to me it's a little bit like units where there are canonical units, and then we have this idea of.

Of sort of an independent unit. Yeah.

Because clearly there are canonicalized things. Like, you know, companies have a president, a secretary, a treasurer.

Right.

In the US at least. And that's canonicalized. And, you know, the notion of a director is canonicalized. You know, one thing, a corner case we're not dealing with here, but I don't think we need to, is co. Presidents, for example.

We touched on that last time, I think, and we were. There's no reason that we can't have two separate entities representing different people in the same office covering the same time period or even disjoint time periods that overlap.

Yeah. Okay, fine. All right.

So there's nothing here that we can't. There. There is, actually. There's. And there's one. There's one side note, and Lisa reminded me of this yesterday, something like president. You can. You have the president of the United States. You could have the president of Denny's if we did a lookup for organization, position tenures, you know, position type president, where the, you know, the position holder was born in Illinois. Yep. Right. Now, the way that's structured, we get, you know, U.S. presidents and people who were presidents of random organizations if we happen to have them.

A little weird.

Deal. Yeah. Right.

A little weird.

And so, I mean, you can. You can imagine having sort of, you know, do we clash on a governmental process? President versus company president. And there is. I mean, when we get a little further down here, one of the core things that I think we Keep running into, as we've talked more about this since last time, is there are some fundamental differences between corporate positions and things like government positions or positions that are in other kinds of organizations. And just some would want to do some thinking here, but.

Well.

There'S, you can, you can say things about the presidency of the United States, you can say things about the President of the United States that are independent of the people who hold that position that are, you know, you've got a, there's some legislation that determines that set the thing up, that determines how it's appointed. There's a salary, there's a seal, there's all these other things. Things. There's not that kind of consistency.

I mean university president, they have a house they live in, they have a.

Sure.

You know, they probably have a set.

That may be true. But, but, but what about the, you know, the, the CEO of Apple? Like the, the question. Well, I think the question is sort of fundamentally like it makes sense to me. It makes sense I think to most people here that there's an entity for us that represents the President of the United States. Does it make an equal amount of sense for there to be an entity that represents the visit, whatever position of Apple?

I think probably yes. I mean I think it, I think it gets less and less sensible as the organizations get smaller and smaller.

Right. When we talked last time about, you know, followed to its conclusion, then we've got the, the chairman of the champagne unit for school board or something and.

We'Ve got to be responsible surviving position, that position. Even if the person who's in that position right now disappears, that position will either. And by the way, then we also have the situation of the position exists but it is vacant, which is a useful thing for us to know.

True.

Now, you know, the creation of a position like clearly if company A is bought by company B, the presidency of company A might disappear.

Right. And the, the role that's performed by the person who's in position X at this company, that position may change into a differently named position with a different scope of duties and all sorts of other things. But they're sort of equivalent. But there are lots of differences.

Right. But that's okay.

I'm not sure. It just, it just gets tricky. I mean part. Partly this is just kind of wondering if there's. It should we be thinking about there being. Should we bring sort of hierarchical entity stuff in here and maybe there, maybe there is a sensible split where there should be different types of positions. Now the president one is one, one that Kind of highlighted that. Well, because there are, there would, there would be. Even if there could be properties of the, the entity that represents the CEO of Apple, there would be properties of, you know, the President of the United States. That would never apply to the CEO of Apple.

Yeah, but, I mean, yes, I understand that but, but okay, the question is the word president, for example, is it simply that that has been abused and reused between the government and the corporate sector and that really those are two different concepts, you know, corporate president and country president?

I mean, I, I don't, I don't know if they're really that fundamentally different. I think it's. For me it's more a matter of letting users try to get at what.

They, I understand what they want. Right. Let's say that somebody says, you know, president of. Thinking of a company, I don't know, British company X. I don't know. I'm not, for some reason I'm blanking on British, quintessentially British companies. But a company that is, you know, a department store, I don't know if they still exist. Tesco's in England, grocery store chain or something. I mean, you know, in other words, that that entity will have a managing director, it will not have a quotes president, even though functionally those things are fairly similar if not identical.

Right.

So what do we do with that? In other words, do we translate? You know, I, I actually don't know. I mean, many companies operate primarily in, you know, even quite large companies that operate primarily in one country. I don't even know whether they would theme. If somebody says, you know, I need to talk to the president of your company, you know, do they have, I mean, it's like, like, you know, I'm sure if they were traded on American exchange, they would have to define a person in, you know, with a mapping of the name of, you know, the president is blah. I suspect that's a field when you fill out, you know, the SEC filing or something.

Right.

Right. So what do we do with. Okay, so there is a title. Maybe we're getting ourselves hung up because there's a title and there is a position. The position has a functional role.

And.

It might have a certain legal. So I mean, where does the legal sort of relevance of that position, you know, the, you know, who's responsible when this or that happens? Oh, gosh. Well, maybe we should keep going here. I mean, my tendency is to say that title is different from role. Yeah, that possible even. There are three things. Title, role, position. I don't quite know what Position means there. I, I mean, you know, leader. You know, in a sense, there's, you know, you know, for a company, this sort of quotes ultimate leader in some. Well, I know, depends what you mean by that. I mean, depends how the company is set up. It could be the case that the, the CEO is the ultimate leader. It could be the case the chairman of the board is the ultimate leader, depending on how you look at it. You know, some companies and, and I mean, okay, like outside the US There are. What are they called? Management boards. And I mean, like in Germany, I think there's a, A, like something like an oversight board and a management board or something. And one of them is external people, the other is internal people, those kinds of things.

Right.

I mean, there might be an executive committee within the company of internal managers. Yeah, right. So I, I don't know how. I mean, that's a question. How does this work? I mean, if we look at financial data filings for these companies, non US Companies, what have those services typically done? I mean, okay, if it's a. Oh, my God, what are those called? Adr. You know, a company that is listed on US Exchange.

Right, right.

There is presumably paperwork associated with that where even if the person is called grand poobah in their native country, they.

Still have to fit into some set of. Right. Canonical position or roles. Yeah, right.

Which are more like what we should be dealing with because then we can map their. Gosh. I mean, you know, for us going through the US Designated names with linguistics that allows us to deal with, you know, the, the Swiss name for such and such a thing seems like the right thing to do. I mean, you know, it could be the case that there are fundamentally different and, and that might be true. For example, when we get onto militaries. I have no idea whether every, you know, whether every military is organized into, you know, it's a hierarchical organization of, you know, platoons and divisions and this and that and the other. I have no idea. I'm sure they're called different things in different countries, but I have no idea whether they're functionally the same.

Right.

Okay, let's. Let's keep going. What, what questions? Go ahead.

Well, I mean, the big question for me was just trying to think through the difference between governmental and corporate and other kinds of organizations. These, these may or may not be helpful to you. They were helpful to me. Just in. This is kind of the wikidata hierarchy going from, you know, CEO versus president of the US and what things those Wikidata entities are Instances of subclasses of or parts of which are kind of three of the key relations in Wikidata that map out those kinds of relationships between things. Like the president of the US is a, it's a subclass of the, the more generic presidents, which is a subclass of, you know, head of state, states, person. Looking at things like this, just to try to think through what some of those higher level general position types might be for different things just starting to seem more useful to me, understanding how this stuff fits together.

Yes.

But then, you know, I mean, it's Wikidata, so it's also. Yeah, right. That's, that's the thing. It's. Once you start going out in Wikidata, you all kinds of weird little nodules that people have, have stuck in there.

Right. This one looks not very useful. This one looks more useful. But that's probably because there really is a pretty well defined set of things here. Right.

Well, and that's, and again, that's the thing that's, that's more true of a lot of government positions because these are things that are, you know, they're, they're really well codified in some constitution and they're, they're supposed to hold up over a long period of time. And generally they do. And there's a lot of things they have in common that's just the two of them glommed together. They really, they really split off in very different ways.

Yeah, right.

The other thing we were talking about before was what do we call some of these things? Like when we're talking about a president versus a CEO and what organizations they are tied to or in charge of and what their jurisdiction or you were suggesting something like domain of responsibility. There's a lot of this stuff that the exact phrasing is kind of hard to pin down. It's also another thing where jurisdiction is something that tends to be pretty easy to understand when you're talking about a governmental position. It's harder to say with some clarity when you're talking about a corporate one.

Why? I know corporate organization tends to be hierarchical.

Yeah. But what are, what are the, what are the things that are showing up in the values of jurisdiction?

Companies. But I agree that it gets more complicated. Might be a division of a company.

Right. And also, and we've had some, we fall on different sides of the fence on this one. But. And again, Wikidata is not the final arbiter of this. We have to decide how this works for us. But when you're talking about someone who is the president of the US President of Italy, Secretary of something. Is the. If we're thinking the organization that they are in charge of, you know, if there's a, there's an associated organization, is that organization the country itself or the organization is, you know, as kind of gets represented here. It's. It's the executive branch of the federal government or it's, it is the, the office of the presidency of something else.

Responsible for the U.S. or is the, is the president of the U.S. actually responsible for the executive office of the president or something?

Right. The organization that they are the chief executive of is not the country. The country is a different kind of entity. They are the chief executive of a specific chunk of the government.

Right. I mean in particular, people will have a staff where they can hire and fire people in their staff. But in the country at large, it's a quite separate thing.

Right.

And sometimes there's a whole mechanism, you know, if there's an agency somewhere of the government, there's a whole piece of machinery for, you know, hiring people in those tentacles and so on.

Right. And we have, I mean we have, it's really. Right. We have entities that represent the governments of different countries and some departments. When we get down to that level, we just, we haven't exposed those yet and we hadn't really talked about do we want to. Does that make sense? Do we go down that road? We have an entity that represents the, the government or the executive branch or this council of whatever that somebody is actually officially the.

Yeah.

The leader of. All right.

I mean, I'm thinking of really weird cases like always.

Yeah.

Some of the. I mean there are like some of the blockchain organizations.

How so?

Well, because it's like who's in charge? I mean, I don't know is. Well, Bitcoin isn't an organization as such. Something mean, I suppose they're the. Yeah. They often have a foundation and a company and this and that. I guess those are separate entities.

Are you thinking something like a dow. The decentralized.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We can have, we can. By the time we're representing a DAO here. I think we won't worry about that case.

Okay.

You know, eventually it's an AI is in charge more or less or it's a. Or it's a pure DAO where nobody is in charge. Where it's just. Yeah. Let's, let's not deal with that head spinning a case. I mean, aren't there. And here I'm showing my lack of knowledge. But I mean, aren't when people have, you know, communes and things, don't they have some. You know, I'm showing my lack of knowledge and naivete here. But, but, you know, is the theory that somebody is in charge or is the theory that nobody is in charge?

I think they tend to operate on like a co op principle. Right. Like everyone is kind of in charge, but it's done by committee. Social collective. Yeah.

Okay, so those are a hopeless case for us here. I mean, but in those cases there is no leader. That. Right. I mean, even though, you know, obviously some countries have tried to theme themselves as being in principle that. But they actually perfectly well do have leaders.

True. Although if, I mean, if someone has a, an actual title or formal role, we're not, we're not just modeling people who are in charge of things. We're modeling people who just have a defined type role.

Yeah, yeah. General Secretary or something.

Whatever. Assistant to the deputy secretary is something I want to represent too. Yeah, right.

Fair enough. Okay, so let's zoom out for a second. Yeah. Right. So let's, let's try to understand what is. Okay, we have the entity that they are associated with, like United States versus Executive branch versus whatever else. One question is. Yeah. Is it a different position that they are U.S. president versus that they are commander in chief, or does one entrain the other, so to speak? I mean, clearly we need to be able to make the query who's commander in chief of the, you know, of the Fijian military or something. And if that happens to be the president of Fiji, then, you know, we should be able to.

Right.

Determine that. I mean, I'm sure that there are, you know, I'm quite certain. I, I know in England at least, I'm sure it's true in the US that there are sort of pseudo honorary, like, like I'm sure, you know, the chairman of the Smithsonian or something is probably, you know, the vice president or some such other thing. I have no idea. I made that up. But, but you know, there are these kind of entrained positions, so to speak.

Oh, I think we touched on that a little bit last time. Like, was it the. The vice president of the United States is also the president of the U. S. Senate.

Yep.

Right. But those are, but those are just. Those for us would be distinct, separate entities.

Okay, so in other words, although.

Although there's. Although we should have some, some place where we model the fact that one is. Comes along for the, for the ride with the other.

See, I mean, the problem is it comes along for the ride until it doesn't. You know, there are these things which have been, you know, oh, it came along for the ride for 200 years, but then suddenly somebody decided to sort.

Of split them apart. Sure.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, I can, I can off the top of my head think of kind of hand wavy ways of indicating that where we, you know, have some property relation that's saying typically associated positions or just associated positions. And you know, if, if the same person holds it at the same time, then it was very strongly associated then. And if there's a period when it wasn't, then there are just different people in that position.

Well, they might continue to have one position and then their secondary position might change. Like they might be chairman of the board of a company and its CEO for a while, but then they stop being its CEO. But they continue to be chairman of the board.

True, but I think then those would be separate. I mean either, either we're representing those as two separate tenure entities from the beginning where someone is chairman of the board, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and a separate entity, CEO, blah, blah, blah, or we have chairman and CEO, blah, blah, blah. And then when they drop one of those roles, there's. There is another. There's another entity that gets created, but it's sequential with the original one.

Yeah. Oh my gosh.

Oh, yeah.

World's a complicated place as we knew.

Yeah.

Okay. So. All right, how do we, what do we need to make forward progress here?

I mean, I think there's. You're inclined to, to say that CEO of Apple isn't. Is a valid entity unto itself. The thing that I was. Okay. I think we could proceed a little more with. Assuming that we're going to set that up. I think we've. Leroy and I were just talking about the government, governments and agencies as organizations. So we can expose those and look at how that gets exposed here with organizations, those kind of organizations versus companies and jurisdiction will, will populate those out more for corporate entities and see if that makes sense when we look at some of those examples. Okay. I think. No, I think some of the other naming ideas, I think we can, we can. Let's. Let's make some changes and come back and look at some more. Get some more specific examples where we've got more data exposed. But I do think the design for these things too, for the. See about the entity, the styling of the entity blobs. Right.

I do think that breaking apart title from functional position or something is worthwhile.

Yeah. Are you, are you thinking just that those are. You're talking about different fundamental entity types or that they're all still organization position types, but we break them into separate properties associated with the people.

I think they should be different types. I think that the, you know, there's a title thing that's pretty clean and it's like, what is the title for this person and that, you know, that could be replicated in the functional position, so to speak. The title could be CEO and the, you know, that could also be a functional position, but the title could be. I mean, you know, like, for example, okay, remember Yahoo. They had, did not have a CEO, they had a chief Yahoo.

Yeah. So we. Is that kind of imagining, well, president, president of a country versus president of the company. They're still, there's still titles, but then we also have a president that's a role or what are we calling it?

Position Functional.

Functional. Something. We need to name it.

But yeah.

Where somewhat. Your example from before, where somebody is. Their title is managing Director. But in their list of things that are functional position, whatever. A generic president might be there.

Yes.

Okay.

Or chief executive is a more likely thing.

Yeah.

But I don't know what the heck we do with something like Chief Yahoo.

I mean, was he anything other than effectively the CEO?

It was just a cutesy name for CEO.

Right. So then, I mean, that's, that's the title. I guess the question is, do we mean what's the formalize that? Yeah, I mean, we have to have that somewhere. Right. If you were gonna, if you were gonna. Or do we not try to canonicalize that and that's just a string that we have somewhere as another property.

Well, I mean, maybe it's another property.

Yeah, it's.

It's like.

That. He has a. There's, there's a, there's a title and the entity in the title property is CEO, but there's another property that's just strings with whatever goofiness was associated with that.

Yes.

Okay.

See, I mean, you know, I'm, I'm just wondering where do we put, you know, her majestic excellence, you know, queen of Whatever. Whatever. Whatever. Whatever. Whatever.

Separate. Separate properties with forms of address associated with a position. I mean, for.

I'm not sure, I think the official position, if you looked it up.

Okay. On a resume, then it's an official. It's an official name. Like full, full formal name or something. Move. Find some more examples and see.

Yeah. What Fine. Might be. I mean, they could use formal name for Chief Yahoo. As well.

That's true. No. Yeah. You're you're. You're absolutely right. We don't need a separate category for stupid names. The.

Yeah. Because I do think.

Okay, yeah, no, that, that, that's. That's a useful breakdown, I think. I mean, it's a little bit of re. Rejiggering of the. The entities, but that there aren't that many things that we need to shuffle around. We can, we can deal with that. Right. Because in particular, for example, for kings and queens, don't they have a lot of, for example, territories in the full. Full format? Oh, yeah, yeah.

Oh, yes, they do.

Lord of the Whatever and. Yeah. And.

Yes. Supreme Ruler of this particular rock in the middle of the, you know, Southern Ocean or something.

So maybe we should have an alternative titles or something like that or.

Yes, but I'm, I'm. Well, I don't think. I'm just thinking. I mean, What is the corporate analog of that? It's. You don't get that as much. I mean, people tack on usually. Yeah, you. You don't see that in the case of countries, you know, somebody conquered the rock in the Southern Ocean or something and then they add that onto the title. Whereas in the corporate case, it's more like it got absorbed into the brand of the. Of the purchasing company. I mean, that could be the case. You could say. You just don't see that in. In the corporate case that I know of.

The.

These long trailing titles that say lots. Interesting. Okay. All right. Anything else we should make sure to cover here?

No, we'll round up the notes and work on the stuff that is practical to work on and come back and continue.

Okay. All right, thanks a lot. Thanks to folks. Thank you, Live Stream. See you all soon. Bye.