oldskeptic

@ddooley An ongoing issue is the linkage of gs1:Product, schema:Product and Foodon Food Products. gs1 and schema.org have "product" view of things to which they attach attributes that makes sense...

+1 There are standard objects in there that may be interesting.

[michaelehowe2](https://github.com/michaelehowe2) Just jumping in to close this. You can commit descriptions and labels with "@en-gb" and use sparql to fallback from "@en-gb" to "@en" or "@en-us" with `LANGMATCHES` and `Coalesce`.

Part of the trouble that I see is that **inedible** and **uneatable** are often used as superlatives in common language and their dictionary definitions are imprecise and occasionally synonymous. I...

> > ``` > > * **Comestible** may be a better label than **edible**. > > ``` It avoids common english exaggerations; en français on dit souvent "c'est pas mangeable",...

> > Candied orange peels would be both unpalatable and comestible. > > I like candied orange ;-) I think "palatable or unpalatable" is depending on preferences s/unpalatable/palatable ; my...

A few more thoughts on hazards: The austria wine scandal where glycol was being used to sweeten wine, which would be "edible hazardous food material": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Austrian_diethylene_glycol_wine_scandal @ddooley How do you...

@damion "Hazard food Material" in the hierarchy graph might be a problem; I'm thinking of a food that is edible / comestible, palatable but still hazardous: Scalding is already in...

> About comestible - is it limited to human beings being the consumer? I think we might as well keep things general so that we can cover food for domesticated...

> exemple of an inedible food material: an apple can not be orally ingested as a whole but can be orally ingested once cut into smaller pieces ( --thank to...