[Data-modeling] A proposal for consumer products

[Ed Laurent]

Sounds good to me. Now that this is being considered in a more general
sense, some schema that will be affected by this change include

http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/base/motorcycle/motorcycle_part_number_manufacturer?domain=%2Fbase%2Fmotorcycle

http://www.freebase.com/type/schema/base/motorcycle/motorcycle_part_number_retailer?domain=%2Fbase%2Fmotorcycle

-Ed



On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Faye Harris <faye at metaweb.com> wrote:

> +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.
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20081222/4767109e/attachment.htm