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

[Kirrily Robert]

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.

That just says to me that perhaps "profession" should have something  
like "specialisation" next to it.  Otherwise, will we have a special  
type for programmers, salespeople, and massage therapists, all of  
which have specialisations of their own?  We already have a phylogeny  
pattern on "Field of Study".  Could we hook up to that somehow?

> Also, scientists make discoveries:
> see /astronomer/astronomy which captures astronomical bodies  
> discovered.

This is true, but I don't think it supports having a Chemist type.  A  
Scientist type, perhaps.  But even so, "discovery" is a bit of an over- 
simplification.

> They develop theories, and a property here will finally link
> /en/albert_einstein to /en/theory_of_relativity in Freebase,

Philosophers and literary theorists develop theories too.  This is not  
unique to science.

> Working scientist yet to
> make earth-shattering discoveries have research topics -- another
> property that can be reciprocated.

This is true for all academics and researchers, not just scientists.

> These professions also tend to be
> regulated, and require qualification or licensing; Canada, for  
> example,
> licenses "professional chemists".

Also true of insurance salesmen and massage therapists.
>

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


Nope, but it might be enough to support some more properties/types  
related to professional qualifications and specialisations, and  
research activities.

K.

-- 
Kirrily Robert
Freebase Community Director
kirrily at metaweb.com
http://freebase.com/