W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2013

Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:44:55 +0000
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
CC: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>, "Dawson, Laura" <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Web Schemas TF <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Message-ID: <CD494E77.5CCE%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
+1 - on the web anyone can say anything about anything.


On 19/02/2013 15:26, "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> On the other hand I would like to stress that the current proposal offers the
> option to mark an entity as a "fictional" one via additionalType. It nicely
> delegates any statement at the schema.org level on what entity types are
> fictional and which ones aren't to the user publishing markup.
> 
> Of course, resulting statements from using the attribute may be regarded as
> offensive, but they are then individual statements, which, in a free society,
> may happen to be offensive. You cannot stop anybody from making respective
> statements in HTML on the Web either, so there is no new problem.
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
> 
>> As I understand it, the BBC's internal archive classification scheme wrestled
>> with precisely this issue ‹ in the end it settled on 'people', 'fictional
>> people' and 'religious entities', with some fairly clear guidelines about
>> what to do if there was doubt about which of latter two somewhere should sit
>> (and all three were considered mutually exclusive). At least then the
>> consumer of the data can deal with the information as it sees fit.
>> 
>> I'll readily admit it's by no means an easy thing to settle, however: what
>> about real people appearing 'as themselves' in a fictional work? The person
>> themselves is as real as you or I, but the events in which they participate
>> are fictional. I don't think we ever quite solved that one in the archive
>> classifications.
>> 
>> M.
>> 
>> On Tue 2013-Feb-19, at 15:00, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Not only is it slippery, but potentially offensive.  As I think over the
>>> list of names described as fictional in WorldCat Identities, I run into
>>> polite variants.  "Deity" for instance.  Is Krishna "fictional"?  We
>>> have his as a "Hindu deity".  Using this markup, are we going to mark
>>> them as fictional, or have to propose another property?
>>> 
>>> Looking at the list of most frequently occurring words for our Subject
>>> names, I see that the top one is not "fictitious", but "character".
>>> That looks to me like the library community has made a distinction
>>> between them over the years.  Are we going to combine them here?  (Yes,
>>> I know this is better discussed on the Bibframe list, but the subject
>>> came up here.)  Other top terms include: deity, legendary, mythology,
>>> biblical, and imaginary.  As you can see, these are words to dance
>>> around the use of "fictional".
>>> 
>>> Honestly, I'm not sure where to come down here.  I like the proposal for
>>> a fictional attribute.  I'm just not sure that we can give clear
>>> guidance on where it should be used.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ed.summers@gmail.com [mailto:ed.summers@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ed
>>> Summers
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:29 AM
>>> To: Wallis,Richard
>>> Cc: Michael Hopwood; Dawson, Laura; Martin Hepp; Thad Guidry; Web
>>> Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg
>>> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki
>>> 
>>> I agree with Martin about "fictional" being a pretty slippery slope.
>>> But I am kind of curious about how people who are advocating for
>>> FictionalThing anticipate it getting used.
>>> 
>>> //Ed
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Richard Wallis
>>> <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>>>> In pure data terms I partly agree with you - there is no difference
>>>> between the description of a real or fictional thing.  Except one of
>>>> them has the attribute of being fictional.
>>>> 
>>>> In describing an identity, especially from the world of creative
>>>> works, there is an obvious difference between real and fictional
>>>> things - which we humans are interested in and need to describe.
>>>> 
>>>> For example the first line from Sir John Falstaff's Wikipedia entry
>>> reads:
>>>> "Sir John Falstaff is a fictional character who appears in ...."
>>>> 
>>>> It is fine for him to have an ISNI, something that could link to a
>>>> description that indicates that he is fictional.
>>>> 
>>>> The fact that James White, used the same string of characters as a
>>>> pseudonym is an attribute of the descriptions of each of them - not an
>>> 
>>>> attribute of the name itself.
>>>> 
>>>> This proposal came out of need to describe characters, or other
>>> fictional
>>>> things, in film/tv metadata.   A need that I believe is more generic
>>> than
>>>> that focussed requirement.
>>>> 
>>>> ~Richard.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 19/02/2013 13:32, "Michael Hopwood" <michael@editeur.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hmmm. I've followed this fascinating thread at a distance but I
>>>>> thought it's a reasonable point to chime in; it's not so much the
>>>>> edge cases, it's that in this context, everything is an edge case.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In all the relevant ontologies and schemas I've dealt with, there
>>>>> simply is no fundamental difference; for example, Sir John Falstaff
>>>>> has an ISNI, although he's fictional; he's also a literary pseudonym
>>> of James White...
>>>>> 
>>>>> The reason for this is that in data, you don't describe actual people
>>> 
>>>>> (maybe FOAF or VCARD are exceptions), you describe public identities.
>>> 
>>>>> You can only tell the real ones from the fictional from their
>>>>> relationships; their properties are the same.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Dawson, Laura [mailto:Laura.Dawson@bowker.com]
>>>>> Sent: 19 February 2013 12:50
>>>>> To: Martin Hepp
>>>>> Cc: Thad Guidry; Richard Wallis; Web Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg
>>>>> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are many edge cases, but I think there are enough
>>>>> straightforward cases to warrant the attempt.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space
>> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E,
>> Zone 1.08, BBC Scotland, Pacific Quay, Glasgow, G51 1DA
>> Project Office: Room 7083, BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
>> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
>> specifically stated.
>> If you have received it in
>> error, please delete it from your system.
>> Do not use, copy or disclose the
>> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
>> immediately.
>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
>> sent or received.
>> Further communication will signify your consent to
>> this.
>> -----------------------------
>> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> 
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>          http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp 
> twitter: mfhepp
> 
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 15:46:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 February 2013 15:46:19 GMT