[Data-modeling] [Developers] Modeling question
Daniel E. Renfer
duck at kronkltd.net
Mon Jan 7 07:53:00 UTC 2008
Well then maybe we need multiple properties that expect the same general
"producer" type.
Manufacturer
Marketer
Distributor
etc.
Ed Laurent wrote:
> Product brand is a pretty elegant solution. However, I'm having a little
> trouble conceptualizing how to use the type for a product such as a cell
> phone that may be produced by one company but sold and marketed by
> multiple middle men under the umbrellas of different brands.
>
> -Ed
>
> On Jan 7, 2008 2:24 AM, Robert Cook <robert at metaweb.com
> <mailto:robert at metaweb.com>> wrote:
>
> Topic granularity for products is a very interesting topic. People
> would like to think of the topics "Coke", "Diet Coke", "Diet Coke 1
> liter bottle" all as type "product" in different circumstances. This
> could be handled by a "phylogeny" containment pattern, where the
> product type pointed to more specific versions of the product, just as
> the "location" type points to other contained locations.
>
> I like the "edible product" idea, although I suspect there might be a
> more elegant name ;-) The "beer" type could benefit from your
> suggested properties:
>
> http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/food/beer
>
> Also, ASINs, Netflix IDs, ISBNs and UPC codes are exactly the kind of
> "foreign keys" we would like to get into Freebase. If anybody has
> access to such keys, we will help get them loaded.
>
> R
>
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 11:04 PM, Daniel E. Renfer wrote:
>
> > 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> <mailto: 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>
> >>> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:Data-modeling at freebase.com <mailto:Data-modeling at freebase.com>>
> >>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> <http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Data-modeling mailing list
> >> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> <mailto:Data-modeling at freebase.com> <mailto:
> Data-modeling at freebase.com <mailto:Data-modeling at freebase.com>>
> >> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> <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 <mailto:Data-modeling at freebase.com>
> > http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> <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/20080107/12e36c42/attachment.pgp
More information about the Data-modeling
mailing list