Dan: Don't object, but don't see the need.

Rebecca: Doesn't seem to belong in gist - not generic enough.

Mark: Agree with Dan and Rebecca.

People who have used the concept of brand in client work: Rebecca/Dylan, Steven, IKG.

Phil: Seems fuzzy.

Rebecca: I think it's a real concept.

Dan: Good to identify where it goes in gist has value for clients. Who knows where else they might put it. Now supports adding it.

Jamie: Useful concept for businesses, but agree that it's not a top-level concept.

Mark: Some people might just want brands as categories, others as instances. Shouldn't dictate in gist.

Doug: Brand has no legal value. Trademark does.

Rebecca: Trademark is an image. That's not brand.

Dylan: Second Phil's point. Dave's personal brand. If we didn't want that included, we need to make that explicit.

Steven: When a company acquires a brand, they're acquiring a trademark, they're also acquiring manufacturing facilities, customers, etc. It's not the same as a trademark.

Jamie: That's not the brand either.

Rebecca: Manufacturing facilities are not intellectual property.

Katie: Brands are like provenance flags.

Dan: Dave needs to weigh in on what a brand is and why it belongs there.

Brett: Distinction between brands and trademarks. Brands are associated with companies. Not sure it is a kind of intellectual property.

Pel: Some companies have a unified brand - e.g., Apple's stores. Frito-Lay has a bunch of different brands.

Cheryl: Brett meant personality of the company or product.

Doug: Is Brand a subclass of Intention?

NEED @mkumba's input to understand better what the intended meaning of Brand is.

Consider class Brand #1192

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Fields

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions