[Data-modeling] /business/company

[Bryan Cheung]

Hi Jonathan,

The changes to /business/company are complete on sandbox and www.

Bryan


On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Benjamin Goldenberg wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling