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

[Robert Cook]

Typically, I think professional types should be created only out of  
necessity.  If there is a lot of useful data around that profession  
(say, which movies you acted in), then it's a good thing to have.  If  
we add Chemists and Physicists, why not Nurses, Physicians and Plumbers?

Speaking of professions and professional types, I recently got another  
request from a startup using Freebase data to synch up these  
denormalizations using automatic data processes to copy data back and  
forth between the representations.

That is, if somebody is typed as politician, he/she should have the  
profession set to politician.  Not all profession/type pairs would  
have this mapping, and even fewer would have them symmetrically (/film/ 
actor -> profession: actor is definitely one way).

On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Faye Harris wrote:

> 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"?