[Data-modeling] /business/company
Benjamin Goldenberg
benjamin at metaweb.com
Tue Jul 22 21:35:58 UTC 2008
I think you are referring to the data correction that I was doing. I
just finished it (literally less than an hour ago). The business
schema can be changed now. Sorry for the delay.
Ben
On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:34 PM, Jonathan W. Lowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-22 at 22:33 +0100, Jonathan W. Lowe wrote:
>> Jamie et al,
>>
>> There was a point when the /business/company model changes needed for
>> addition of non-business-chain companies with multiple office
>> locations
>> would become possible. Somebody asked for a stay of execution in
>> order
>> to have more time to finish up a data load into the old schema. I
>> think
>> that the waiting for this load turned into forgetting to change the
>> schema. Now that over two months have passed, is it safe to go ahead
>> with the changes that Praveen, Jeff and Bryan have discussed and (I
>> think) agreed?
>>
>> Once changed the /business/company schema will then be able to
>> receive a
>> load of time-ranged Berkeley business locations...
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 13:42 -0700, Jamie Taylor wrote:
>>> I'm very in favor of creating a location(s) property on company.
>>> Headquarters is a special location....and retail location seems
>>> like a
>>> co-type with specific properties.
>>>
>>> ...splitting is a separate (more involved) issue.
>>>
>>> On May 13, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Jeff Prucher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jonathan W. Lowe [mailto:jlowe at giswebsite.com]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:17 AM
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea of having lots of properties associated with a
>>>>> business type, only some of which properties apply to
>>>>> particular business instances, is understandable.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the type breakdown of retail location, business chain and
>>>>> company doesn't fit a business that has multiple addresses
>>>>> for distributed offices, but is not a business chain -- e.g.
>>>>> dentist's offices. Do we have consensus on how to load this
>>>>> sort of data? Use /business_chain to hold businesses that
>>>>> aren't really chains? ...or modify /company (and
>>>>> /retail_location?) to hold multiple addresses? ...or...?
>>>>
>>>> I think Praveen's suggestion downthread is a good one. I.e.,
>>>> adding a
>>>> property "locations" to "company", with an expected type of
>>>> "business
>>>> location". This avoids the semantic argument about whether a
>>>> dentist
>>>> with
>>>> two offices is really a "chain" or not, but provides more semantic
>>>> structure
>>>> than just sticking multiple addresses on there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 10:51 -0700, Jeff Prucher wrote:
>>>>>> My main issue with trying to split "company" into multiple
>>>>>> types is
>>>>>> that, apart from publicly-traded companies, which some
>>>>> properties are
>>>>>> very clearly specific to, I can't think of a way to split them
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> makes sense. This doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't
>>>>> a way; I
>>>>>> just haven't seen one yet. It seems to me like the properties
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> sort of be split into a couple conceptual buckets -- "big"
>>>>> companies
>>>>>> vs. "small" companies or "companies a lot of people care about"
>>>>>> vs.
>>>>>> "companies only locals probably care about" or even "companies we
>>>>>> think we could get a lot of data for" vs "companies we
>>>>> don't think we
>>>>>> could get a lot of data for". All of these would probably
>>>>> split along
>>>>>> similar lines, and I agree that there are some good arguments for
>>>>>> trying to split them; it definitely seems weird to think about
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> advisors and spin-offs for the liquor store down the block.
>>>>> But if we
>>>>>> took, say, the properties relating to mergers &
>>>>> acquistions, revenue,
>>>>>> and stocks off the company type, where would we put them?
>>>>> This seems
>>>>>> to be the biggest sticking point for me: What is the type for the
>>>>>> "companies lots of people might care about"? If we can
>>>>> think of one that makes sense, it might be worth trying out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: Praveen Paritosh [mailto:paritosh at metaweb.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:24 PM
>>>>>>> To: Jonathan W. Lowe
>>>>>>> Cc: Jeff Prucher; bryan.cheung at metaweb.com; 'Kirrily
>>>>> Robert'; 'Toby
>>>>>>> Segaran'; 'Robert Cook'; 'John Giannandrea'; 'Jamie Taylor';
>>>>>>> 'Christopher R. Maden'; 'Alexander Marks'
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: /business/company
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two concerns:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Detail in /business/company:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jeff suggested that creating a simpler company type and building
>>>>>>> other types of companies by included type is not feasible, as it
>>>>>>> breaks down in complexity as there are many different ways to
>>>>>>> organize companies across the world.
>>>>>>> Rather, have most of the meaningful properties that
>>>>> people want to
>>>>>>> talk about in one type and leave it at that. Jeff,
>>>>> correct me if I
>>>>>>> am misquoting you. It doesn't feel right to me, but maybe this
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> the pragmatic thing to do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Ability to talk about locations of non-chains:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Companies have two location properties: headquarters and place
>>>>>>> founded.
>>>>>>> Additionally, if they were business chains, they have retail
>>>>>>> locations.
>>>>>>> But a non business chain (e.g., a Doctor's office in two
>>>>>>> locations) has no way of talking about these. At this
>>>>> point, I might
>>>>>>> not know the headquarters or founding place, and it seems
>>>>> better to
>>>>>>> model it in the same way as business chain's retail
>>>>> location. Only
>>>>>>> that these are not necessarily retail locations, so
>>>>> invent a type of
>>>>>>> "business location"
>>>>>>> and add a "locations" property to /business/company.
>>>>>>> Jamie further suggested to make it the same property
>>>>> which is used
>>>>>>> by chains to point to their retail locations and change
>>>>> the ECT of
>>>>>>> that property to "business location".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meta: should this have been on the modeling list?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Praveen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jonathan W. Lowe wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> City of Berkeley has recently shared their business license
>>>>>>> database
>>>>>>>> contents -- all businesses since 1992 that have paid for a
>>>>>>> license to
>>>>>>>> do business in Berkeley, including geolocations and
>>>>> NAICS codes.
>>>>>>>> Based on the names and NAICS codes, many of these licenses
>>>>>>> obviously
>>>>>>>> correspond to very small businesses with fewer than 20
>>>>> employees
>>>>>>>> or just a sole-proprietor. A good example is a dentist's
>>>>>>> office. There
>>>>>>>> are between 10,000 and 13,000 Berkeley business licenses issued
>>>>>>>> per year, most of which are this sort of "Mom & Pop"
>>>>> kind of company.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most of the /business/company properties seem more
>>>>> appropriate for
>>>>>>>> corporate entities. The dentists and auto-body repair
>>>>>>> businesses of
>>>>>>>> this world are unlikely to be eager to share market cap,
>>>>>>> subsidiary,
>>>>>>>> spin-off or acquisition data about their businesses
>>>>> (even though
>>>>>>>> they've been operating four times longer than the typical
>>>>>>> startup).
>>>>>>>> However, the Mom & Pop small business community seems like an
>>>>>>>> appropriate target to try to hook on Freebase. Hence the
>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>> for a simpler initial /business/company type that won't
>>>>>>> confuse that community.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does this better contextualize the discussion?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jonathan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 10:39 -0700, Jeff Prucher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Apart from ticker-symbol and major shareholders, which
>>>>>>> properties do
>>>>>>>>> you think are specific only to a single type of company? I
>>>>>>>>> suspect that abstracting these out (I guess this is
>>>>> actually the opposite:
>>>>>>>>> de-abstracting? Concretizing?) would be a false economy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>> From: Praveen Paritosh [mailto:paritosh at metaweb.com]
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 4:38 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: Jonathan W. Lowe; bryan.cheung at metaweb.com; Kirrily
>>>>>>> Robert; Toby
>>>>>>>>>> Segaran; Robert Cook; John Giannandrea; Jeff Prucher;
>>>>>>> Jamie Taylor;
>>>>>>>>>> Christopher R. Maden; Alexander Marks
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: /business/company
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The /business/company schema is quite complicated, with the
>>>>>>>>>> following
>>>>>>>>>> properties:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/founded",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/slogan",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/company_type",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/place_founded",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/headquarters",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/industry",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/revenue",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/operating_income",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/net_income",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/number_of_employees",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/parent_company",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/ticker_symbol",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/subsidiary_companies",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/founders",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/board_members",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/advisors",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/previous_names",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/spun_off_from",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/spin_offs",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/companies_acquired",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/acquired_by",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/product_of_merger",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/involved_in_merger",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/market_capitalization",
>>>>>>>>>> "/business/company/major_shareholders"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The /business/company/company_type takes values like
>>>>>>> "Privately held
>>>>>>>>>> company", "Partnership", etc.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Some of the the properties do not apply to all
>>>>> companies, e.g.,
>>>>>>>>>> ticker_symbol does not make sense for a privately
>>>>> held company
>>>>>>>>>> or non-profit organization (right?).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it make sense to have a very simple
>>>>>>> /business/company type
>>>>>>>>>> with a few properties, and then build each of the
>>>>>>>>>> /business/company_types by including this simple company type
>>>>>>>>>> and adding properties that make sense to that type of
>>>>>>>>>> company?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Praveen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
More information about the Data-modeling
mailing list