[Data-modeling] Chemist & other types that are professions - was Re: State of the commons (C-F)

[Faye Harris]

When it comes to types that represent professions in Freebase, the 
coverage is rather uneven and in my opinion, regrettable.

We have types for every major profession in entertainment and sports, 
but hardly any in science: there's no type for physicist and to lose 
chemist as well --

As for the lack of properties I have a few to propose. Every 
science-oriented profession has specialties: In chemistry we have 
analytical chemistry, organic chemistry, electrochemistry. In physics we 
have astropysics, quantum physics, etc. An existing type with 
specialties is /medicine/physician. Also, scientists make discoveries: 
see /astronomer/astronomy which captures astronomical bodies discovered. 
They develop theories, and a property here will finally link 
/en/albert_einstein to /en/theory_of_relativity in Freebase, thus 
uniting two inseparable scientific entities. Working scientist yet to 
make earth-shattering discoveries have research topics -- another 
property that can be reciprocated. These professions also tend to be 
regulated, and require qualification or licensing; Canada, for example, 
licenses "professional chemists".

Is that enough to save "chemist" and start "physicist"?

-- Faye


Robert Cook wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 12:40 PM, Kirrily Robert wrote:
>   
>> Chemistry: Fairly solid.  I wonder about the type "Chemist", though,
>> which has no properties.
>>     
>
> This was my fault from long, long ago before we had a "profession"  
> property on people.  I think this probably should be deprecated and  
> the data moved to profession.