[Data-modeling] Products with ingredients
Faye Harris
faye at metaweb.com
Tue Jun 30 20:14:09 UTC 2009
Looks good! I think it's ready for prime time.
-- Faye
Jeff Prucher wrote:
> And one last time:
> http://www.sandbox-freebase.com/view/user/typelibrarian/default_domain/views
> /cheerios_ingredients
>
> Jeff
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Prucher
>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 4:38 PM
>> To: 'Freebase data modeling mailing list'
>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Products with ingredients
>>
>> Here's a revised schema with the derives from/derivative
>> properties. Lemme know whatcha think:
>>
>> <http://www.sandbox-freebase.com/view/user/typelibrarian/defau
>> lt_domain/view
>> s/cranberry_almond_crunch_ingredients>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Faye Harris
>>> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 2:24 PM
>>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
>>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Products with ingredients
>>>
>>> +1 on adding the parent-child relationship so that we'd have both
>>> "variety of" and "derives from" properties, instead of just
>>>
>> the former
>>
>>> for both purposes.
>>>
>>> -- Faye
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff Prucher wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are three examples upthread that led to the phylogeny
>>>>
>>> pattern,
>>>
>>>> each of which is a slightly different case:
>>>>
>>>> (variety) <--> (generalization)
>>>> Milled corn <--> Corn
>>>> Sodium lauryl sulfate (from coconut oil) <--> Sodium
>>>>
>> lauryl sulfate
>>
>>>> Enriched flour (foo, bar, bazz, fazz) <--> Enriched flour
>>>>
>>>> Faye's division fits this pretty well:
>>>> Milled corn is derived from corn; SLS (from coconut) is a
>>>>
>>> variety of
>>>
>>>> SLS, and is also derived from coconut; enriched flour
>>>>
>>> (etc., usw) is a
>>>
>>>> variety of enriched flour. (Reviewing this thread, I note that Ed
>>>> suggested a Processed Ingredient type way back at the outset.)
>>>>
>>>> The big question is, would we be asking for trouble by adding a
>>>> parent/child relationship to this, in addition to the two
>>>>
>> phylogeny
>>
>>>> patterns? Or should we just punt it for now?
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>>>>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of
>>>>>
>> Tom Morris
>>
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 10:37 AM
>>>>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Products with ingredients
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with Faye. It seems very weird to have rice flour
>>>>>
>> and rice so
>>
>>>>> strongly related. I don't consider rice flour to be a
>>>>>
>>> generalization
>>>
>>>>> of rice at all. About the only places where they would
>>>>>
>>> potentially
>>>
>>>>> interchangeable would be for nutritional information or
>>>>>
>>> for allergies.
>>>
>>>>> You might be able to substitute basmati rice for jasmine
>>>>>
>>> rice if you
>>>
>>>>> didn't care too much about the difference in texture or
>>>>>
>>> maintaining
>>>
>>>>> cultural authenticity, but if you substituted rice flour (of any
>>>>> variety), you'd be in a whole heap of trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The examples in the schema descriptions (yay for
>>>>> descriptions!) seem to have the same problem. You can get
>>>>>
>>> lavender
>>>
>>>>> oil out of a lavender plant, but they aren't
>>>>>
>>> generalizations of each
>>>
>>>>> other. If anything, the generalization would be aromatic oil or
>>>>> fragrance or something.
>>>>>
>>>>> For most applications, it's more useful to have things linked
>>>>> together because of common properties rather than
>>>>>
>> because they are
>>
>>>>> made from the same source material or by the same process.
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 for making this even more obscure by linking in Material.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Faye Harris
>>>>>
>>> <faye at metaweb.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Very cool!
>>>>>
>>>>> That rice flour is called a "variety of" rice in the schema is
>>>>> indeed very odd.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the sandbox examples, this schema seems to use
>>>>>
>>> "variety of"
>>>
>>>>> for two types of relationships:
>>>>> 1) variety of, e.g. brown rice is a "variety of" rice
>>>>> 2) derived from, e.g. rice flour is "derived from" rice
>>>>>
>>>>> The former relationship is categorical, the latter relates to
>>>>> post-processing.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Faye
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff Prucher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, I've got the double-phylogeny pattern
>>>>>
>>> working now. Take a look
>>>
>>>>> here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.sandbox-freebase.com/type/schema/business/product_i
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ngredient
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And here's a table view of the ingredients of a
>>>>>
>>> breakfast cereal I
>>>
>>>>> found in
>>>>> the office kitchen:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.sandbox-freebase.com/view/user/jeff/default_domain/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> views/cranberr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> y_almond_crunch_ingredients
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not really happy with the "variety of" and
>>>>>
>>> "generalization of"
>>>
>>>>> names,
>>>>> but I'm not coming up with anything better. Any
>>>>>
>>> suggestions would
>>>
>>>>> be most
>>>>> welcome.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
>>>>>
>>>>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of
>>>>>
>>> Jeff Prucher
>>>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:42 AM
>>>>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Products
>>>>>
>>> with ingredients
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- "Faye Harris" <faye at metaweb.com>
>>>>>
>>> <mailto:faye at metaweb.com>
>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Faye Harris"
>>>>> <faye at metaweb.com> <mailto:faye at metaweb.com>
>>>>> To: "Freebase data modeling
>>>>> mailing list"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <data-modeling at freebase.com>
>>>>> <mailto:data-modeling at freebase.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009
>>>>> 2:59:19 PM GMT -08:00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> US/Canada Pacific
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling]
>>>>> Products with ingredients
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff Prucher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- "Robert Cook"
>>>>> <robert at metaweb.com> <mailto:robert at metaweb.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One solution would be
>>>>> to create a topic with a long name -- enter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> it
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> exactly as it appears
>>>>> on the label such as "Enriched flour -
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (wheat,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> niacin, iron, baby
>>>>> powder, sawdust, DDT)".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This would answer.
>>>>> Anyone else have any comments or
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> thoughts on this
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> before I load the schema?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The main problem with this is
>>>>> you can't arrive at the products that
>>>>> use enriched flour by clicking
>>>>> on a property link from a single
>>>>> "enriched
>>>>>
>>>>> flour" topic. Rather, you have
>>>>> to do a keyword search for products
>>>>> based on matching all the
>>>>> various "enriched flour - (foo, bar, bat,
>>>>> baz)"
>>>>> ingredient topics with the
>>>>> words "enriched" and "flour".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's quite
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> a loss in queriability.> >
>>>>> The schema is fine to get us
>>>>> started, but we're still going
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> to try to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> put together some phylogeny
>>>>> pattern in place (in the near future)
>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I plan to add a phylogeny pattern
>>>>>
>> before moving the schema to
>>
>>>>> freebase.com, which should help
>>>>>
>> queryability. It doesn't
>>
>>>>> address the fact that topics named
>>>>>
>> things like "enriched
>>
>>>>> flour (that, that, the other thing)"
>>>>> are exceedingly ugly,
>>>>> however (no-one said it was called
>>>>>
>> "prettybase.com", though).
>>
>>>>> I was going to post a revised schema
>>>>>
>> to sandbox, with the
>>
>>>>> double-phylogeny pattern suggested by
>>>>>
>> Robert, but it got
>>
>>>>> horribly munged in the process. I'll
>>>>>
>> try to fix it, but it
>>
>>>>> might not be till next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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