[Data-modeling] [Developers] Modeling question

Mon Jan 7 07:04:08 UTC 2008

I know this adds another layer to the data, but you might want to go 
even further and break it down to the types or brands of a product and 
the instances or editions of that brand.

For instance:

<The Coca-Cola Bottling Corporation> produces <Coca-Cola>
<Coca-Cola> has an edition <Coca-Cola 20 oz. Bottle>
<Coca-Cola> has an edition <Coca-Cola 2 ltr. Bottle>

<The Coca-Cola Bottling Corporation> produces <Diet Coke>

You could then break it down to regional variance in ingredients, 
weight, nutritional value, (although this would be a property of the 
co-type, Edible Products) etc.

I don't know how this would fly for most people, but what about a 
property to record the ASIN (The key in Amazon's database) of the item 
as well.

Ed Laurent wrote:
> I guess it's growing on me and Shawn's definition helps quite a bit 
> except I would replace "organization" with "person, company, or other 
> organization". My concern is that the product <-> producer concepts are 
> so general that they should be well thought out and modeled as generally 
> as possible so that they support all relevant co-types now and in the 
> future. For example, are UPC, weight/volume, and cost universal 
> properties of a product? Coca-cola for example has different 
> combinations of ingredients depending on where it is sold. Similarly, my 
> motorcycle model has a different gear ratio when sold in Japan compared 
> to the U.S. Maybe these versions have different UPCs but their 
> differences in weight/volume are insignificant and you might be able to 
> sell each version for the same price. I don't know how many topics in 
> Freebase can/will be considered products but it's probably a bunch. Any 
> problems later on could have big implications.
> 
> -Ed
> 
> 
> On Jan 7, 2008 12:19 AM, Shawn Simister <narphorium at gmail.com 
> <mailto:narphorium at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     I would define a Product as a tangible object which is sold by an
>     organization under a specific brand name. Therefore corn or people
>     are not products but Corn Flakes and People Magazine are. I know
>     that there are more general definitions of products, but I think
>     they could be accommodated by additional types like Commercial
>     Service, Commodity etc.
> 
>     Shawn
> 
>     Ed Laurent wrote:
>>     The "Products producer" type with a "Products produced" property
>>     sounds pretty good to me. The "Product" type a little less so.
>>     Would every tangible topic (including people) need to be typed as
>>     a product? What defines a product that separates it from other
>>     tangible topics? I agree that this kind of type could be very
>>     useful and there should be reciprocation between product and
>>     producer but I'm not excited about this approach to doing it.
>>
>>     -Ed
>>
>>     P.S. This conversation is probably more relevant to the Data
>>     Modeling list so I'm cc'ing it.
>>
>>
>>     On Jan 6, 2008 10:05 PM, Daniel E. Renfer < duck at kronkltd.net
>>     <mailto:duck at kronkltd.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         It would probably make sense to have some sort of "products
>>         producer"
>>         co-type. The producers would have a "products produced" link
>>         to the
>>         "producer" field of the corresponding "product" type.
>>
>>         Not every company produces products, and there are some
>>         products that
>>         are produced by groups other than companies.
>>
>>         Other than that, it sounds like great information to track.
>>
>>         Kavitha Srinivas wrote:
>>         > For companies, is there any interest in linking companies to
>>         their
>>         > major products (e.g., Pfizer to its key pharma products) as
>>         listed in
>>         > Wikipedia?  I don't mind adding it, but there is no
>>         appropriate slot
>>         > to add it.
>>         > Key products seems to be important information for a company.
>>         > Thanks!
>>         > Kavitha
>>         > _______________________________________________
>>         > Developers mailing list
>>         > Developers at freebase.com <mailto:Developers at freebase.com>
>>         > http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/developers
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Developers mailing list
>>         Developers at freebase.com <mailto:Developers at freebase.com>
>>         http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/developers
>>
>>
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Data-modeling mailing list
>>     Data-modeling at freebase.com <mailto:Data-modeling at freebase.com>
>>     http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>>       
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Data-modeling mailing list
>     Data-modeling at freebase.com <mailto:Data-modeling at freebase.com>
>     http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20080107/77bfa260/attachment.pgp 