[Data-modeling] A proposal for consumer products

[Robert Cook]

On Dec 22, 2008, at 12:48 PM, Faye Harris 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.

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/macintosh
   I like Kirrily's refinement that distinguishes between product  
lines and actual models.  My computer model conflates these (and the  
property name "includes models" doesn't help.)

I did the same thing for operating systems which gives further fuel to  
the idea that this should be a more generic type (although is an OS a  
"consumer product"?  Also -- it is decidedly not manufactured.)
   http://www.freebase.com/view/en/mac_os

One problem I discovered is that the phylogeny pattern unfortunately  
conflates product hierarchy and product history for the average  
contributor.  See:
   http://www.freebase.com/view/en/macbook

...which lists "iBook" as the parent model.  The Macbook replaced the  
iBook, but it's not part of the iBook product line.  It may help to  
distinguish between the product lines and the product history through  
distinct properties.  We could have a "replaced model" that mirrors  
"replaced by" properties in addition to the phylogeny for product  
line.  I think product geeks will appreciate the distinction and the  
presence of the "replacement" properties will help clarify the intent  
of the product line hierarchy.

> 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?

I propose that instead of incorrectly using "manufacturer", we should  
use the word "brand".  Apple is the brand for the Macbook.  They are  
also the designer.  They are definitely not the manufacturer.

>
> -- 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