[Data-modeling] A proposal for consumer products

[Faye Harris]

+0.5. I'll raise my other hand in full support after I've seen examples 
that showcase real world usage of "product line", "parent product line", 
and "includes sub-lines". But the descriptions sound good.

Thanks for explaining what a manufacturer means in the business world. 
Is there/will there be a way to capture the factories/companies/whatever 
actually contracted to *make*, if not *manufacture*, the physical 
product units?

-- Faye


Kirrily Robert wrote:
> Just talked to Jeff about this and wanted to run it past you all.   
> I'll also crosspost to the Business domain.
>
> Currently we have no link between "iPhone" and "Apple" in our schema.   
> That is, the consumer product type has no property for the company  
> that makes that product.  The problem is that if you talk about  
> "Product manufacturer" you get all caught up in the fact that  
> actually, some factory in China manufactures/assembles the iPhone.   
> But I talked to some of our business guys and asked them, and they  
> said that the term manufacturer, though imprecise, is the right term  
> to use.  And we couldn't come up with anythign better.
>
> So here's what I propose:
>
> 1) A type, "Product manufacturer".  The description for that type  
> should explain that it applies to the company ultimately responsible  
> for producing the product, and isn't intended to capture the actual  
> physical manufacturing of the product eg. by subcontracted factories.
>
> 2) On the type "Consumer product", a property called "Produced by"  
> which expects "Product manufacturer".  Calling it "produced by" will  
> discourage people who are looking at the iPhone page from putting in  
> the name of the Chinese factory.
>
> 3) Additionally, a type called "Product line" which has the properties  
> "Parent product line" and "Includes sub-lines" (i.e. a phylogeny  
> pattern) as well as "Products in this line" which expects "Consumer  
> product".
>
> 4) On "Consumer product", a reverse property called "Part of product  
> line"
>
> It's not perfect but it seems good enough for now, and better than  
> nothing.  Thoughts?
>
> K.
>
>
>