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 17:31:53 +0000
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.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>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Web Schemas TF <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Message-ID: <CD496789.5CE5%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
On 19/02/2013 15:54, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> I had a quick chat with Guha recently re FictionalX. His suggestion
> was that fictitiousness was not best expressed with special types, but
> with special properties.

I would agree if fictional was only a state - I flirted with the idea of
proposing a Boolean 'fictional' property on Thing.  But that denies the
possibility of identifying the context in which a fictional thing exists
(even fictionally ;).

Searching for fictional things in Wikipedia soon identifies a pattern of
needing to describe them in the context of creative work(s) in which they
appear:

* Lilliput and Blefuscu are two fictional island nations that appear in the
first part of the 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels
* Mount Doom is a fictional volcano in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth
legendarium
* Kryptonite is a fictional material from the Superman mythos
* The Nautilus is the fictional submarine captained by Nemo featured in
Jules Verne's novels

Hence my proposal for a Type with properties to satisfy that need, as I
believe that overloading Thing with properties that are only relevant if the
thing is fiction would be possibly confusing.  Happy to be convinced
otherwise but.....

~Richard.
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 17:32:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 February 2013 17:32:44 GMT