[Data-modeling] [Developers] Modeling question
Ed Laurent
spatial.db at gmail.com
Mon Jan 7 08:11:37 UTC 2008
A couple examples that may help us formalize a strategy for describing
product <-> producer types that accept multiple brands: Chevy Astro vs. GMC
Safari mini-vans. They are essentially the same product with different
brands. The same goes with the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe. These
examples each have a few distinguishing features besides badges but they are
essentially the same products with different brands.
Shawn's product edition idea is a good one but I think it may be synonymous
with Car body style <http://www.freebase.com/view/car_body_style> in the
Automotive domain. There are probably other existing examples in Freebase as
well. Is it too general?
-Ed
On Jan 7, 2008 2:53 AM, Daniel E. Renfer <duck at kronkltd.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080107/73e20882/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Data-modeling
mailing list