[Data-modeling] [Developers] Modeling question
Daniel E. Renfer
duck at kronkltd.net
Mon Jan 7 08:44:52 UTC 2008
Making a change like this would most likely make quite a few properties
redundant. I notice that most of the properties of /food/beverage could
probably be factored into different types.
"Manufacturer" would be replaced by link between the 3 proposed product
types.
"Place of origin" would probably be best suited on the "Product Edition"
type. This would allow the regional variations of products to be pinned
down to the places/factories where it was produced.
"Color" arguably should be moved to the "Physical Object" type that a
whole boatload of topics would need to be typed.
"Proof" should then be shipped off to the "Alcoholic Beverage" type that
all beers, wines, and liquors would share.
Do you think that "Manufacturer" should be a property of the "Product
Brand" or the "Product Edition" or both?
If only the edition had the manufacturer link, then you could
conceivably create a brand (the problems with that name show themselves
here) that represents the common design of the two cars. Those cars
would each link to their respective companies, which would then link
back together via company types up the ladder.
It would probably make sense as well that a particular Edition could
belong to multiple Brands.
Ed Laurent wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: 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>>
> <mailto: 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>>
> > >>> <mailto: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>> <mailto: 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>>
> > <mailto: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>>
> > <mailto: 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>> <mailto:
> > 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
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/e55917d4/attachment.pgp
More information about the Data-modeling
mailing list