[Data-modeling] [Developers] Modeling question

Tue Jan 8 01:50:35 UTC 2008

Alec Flett wrote:

 > I guess what I'm saying is - it makes a lot of sense to
 > me to start specific and work up, property by property,
 > to more general uses.. .when applicable.

I couldn't agree more, but let me push you further here. Two questions:

1. What makes beverage domain the right level of abstraction? Is it 
possible that any of canned, bottled, fountain soda, carton packs, etc 
are the right level? Maybe juices need be modeled separately? The 
question here is -- do you envision a level that is specific enough, or 
can it be anything?

Here's a random candidate heuristic: some analogue of "basic-level 
categories [1]" which are things that are abstract enough that one can 
easily visualize. For example, dogs, cars and chairs; whereas animals, 
vehicle or furniture are not easily visualizable, and thus too abstract. 
Rocking chairs, poodles and sports cars are too specific. But these 
depend upon how much you know about a domain.

2. How does this contrast with domains like Books or Music, where there 
has been detailed, top down modeling?

Thanks,
Praveen.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Theory#Basic_Level_Categories

>> http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/user/robert/mobile_phones/product
>>
>> The idea here is that products have a brand (as opposed to a 
>> manufacturer or producer) and different kinds of web resources such as 
>> support webpages and online reviews.  Obviously, this is intended for 
>> a tangible product and not a service, which I think could be handled 
>> with the "Product service"/"Service brand" pairing.
>>
>> My rule of thumb is if a type is very general, then it should be 
>> simple and have few properties.  
>>
>> My mobile phone type includes the product type:
>>
>> http://www.freebase.com/view/schema/user/robert/mobile_phones/mobile_phone
>>
>> R
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2008, at 9:45 PM, 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 <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