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

Re: Modeling fictional characters in movies and TV

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:32:41 +0000
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
CC: Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD19813A.4CB3%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Hi Gregg,

Referencing the other current thread on this list about the purpose of
Schema.org and the breadth and purpose of the list itself, I am looking at
this from the point of view of someone marking up their web pages.  Using
the additionalType property, I come up with something like this in
Microdata:

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person">
   <link itemprop="additionalType" href="http://schema.org/FictionalThing"
/>
   <span itemprop="name">Harry Potter</span>
   Affiliation:
   <span itemprop="affiliation">Hogwarts</span>
   <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/FictionalThing">
    From the book:  <span itemprop="referencedIn">Harry Potter and the
Philosopherıs Stone</span>
  </div>
</div>

I am deliberately resisting the urge to create a Character class, as it is
an approach that will obviously not scale across all the fictitious things
that we could come across.   How is this different to saying that a thing
we are describing is a schema:Book with an additionalType of schema:Offer so
that we can so that we can describe both its creative work and product or
sale properties.

I acknowledge that Character may be a special case that requires a type ­
after all we have a word in English to describe a fictitious person in a
creative work, so it may well have enough extra importance to demand one.
But using what is a special case to test a generic theory doesnıt work very
well ­ lets get generic right and then specialise if it is inadequate.

A bit of turtle always helps me see what Iım modelling, this is what I get
for the above which would naturally map to RDFa:
<http://example.com/people/1234>
    a <http://schema.org/Person>;
    a <http://schema.org/FictionalThing> ;
    schema:name "Harry Potter";
    schema:affiliation "Hogwarts";
    schema:referencedIn ³Harry Potter and the Philosopherıs Stone².

Iım no RDFS expert so the nuances of your explanation are not fully clear ­
however many of our [web page markup] audience are not even aware of RDFS.

The above feels like a simple solution to me (which may be simpler to use,
than describe using OWL & RDFS).

~Richard.

On 13/01/2013 09:05, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> On Jan 11, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
> 
>> Re: Modeling fictional characters in movies and TV
>> Hi Gregg,
>> 
>> Sorry for replying to this one out of sequence, I have been thinking about it
>> and discussing it ;-)
>> 
>> You say ³From my understanding of RDFS, if I have a subject with two
>> different types, then I'm really saying that the properties associated with
>> this subject are the intersection of those two types.²
>> 
>> My understanding is that the result would be the union of the properties of
>> the two types, thus achieving the result I was suggesting.
> 
> Yes, of course you're right, I was confusing this with rdfs:subTypeOf. My
> concern is that if I wanted to describe properties on a fictional person, I
> would need to define a type which is the union of schema:Person and
> schema:FictionalThing, such as the following:
> 
> :FictionalPerson a [ a owl:Class; owl:unionOf (schema:Person
> schema:FictionalThing)] .
> 
>> I am confused by your actor example, as an actor would not normally be a
>> fictional Person, the character they portray would be.
> 
> I was using schema:actor as a property of a schema:Character. When I was
> saying that schema:actor had the domain of wikia:Character, I was saying that
> a Character may have an associated Actor; I think this is okay. If I had used
> rdfs:range instead of rdfs:domain, then it would be a problem.
> 
>> To satisfy your example of an actor portraying a fictional character, I
>> believe we may be looking for a type of Person ŒActorı that has a property of
>> Œportrayedı or Œcreatedı  that would have an expected type of Person.  When
>> encoding your data you could then describe that person (your character) as
>> being of type Person and of type FictionalThing.
> 
> That "portrayed" is an appropriate inverse property of actor, as if a
> character has an Actor, an actor portrays a Character.
> 
>> To be successful we need to find a generic way of enabling any Œthingı to be
>> described as a FictionalThing ­ picking off individual solutions for specific
>> types of things such as a character simply wonıt scale.
> 
> Yes, I think that having such a generic mechanism is a good idea, it's just
> that if you want to start to describe properties on the "mixin" of Person and
> FictionalThing, though, you need to be able to describe the union type. I
> believe that this is the intent of schema:rangeIncludes/domainIncludes. I
> think that appropriate rules for these could be the following (although
> expressing it formally will require some more work.
> 
> For all classes ?c* which have a common subject and rdfs:rangeIncludes
> predicate, construct the following triples:
> 
> _:rangeClass a owl:Class; owl:unionOf (?c*)  . # same for domains
> 
> Actually constructing these statements is challenging because owl:unionOf
> takes a list rather than multiple repeated statements for each object.
> 
> Note that multiple properties having the same set of range/domainIncludes will
> result in multiple blank nodes, which entail each other, but are not
> equivalent nodes. Furthermore, actually using the property in a concrete
> instantiation uses an entailment rule that claims that the range is of an
> equivalent class
> 
> <JamesTKirk> schema:actor <WilliamShatner> .
> 
> would end up entailing
> 
> <JamesTKirk> a [ owl:Class; owl:unionOf (schema:Person schema:FictionalThing)
> ].
> 
> due to rule rdfs2
> 
> If it is appropriate for schema.org <http://schema.org>  to define a something
> like a character property (in addition to the Performance property suggested
> by Yves), then I think it does need to define a schema:Character class, so
> that properties such as schema:actor can be ascribed to it. For schema
> definition purposes, in the spirit of not getting all pedantic about using OWL
> to do this representation, it might require adding something like a
> schema:classIncludes annotation property, similar to rangeIncludes and
> domainIncludes so we could assert:
> 
> schema:Character schema:classIncludes schema:Person, schema:FictionalThing .
> 
> Gregg
> 
>> ~Richard.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 09/01/2013 21:14, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.net
>> <x-msg://178/gregg@greggkellogg.net> > wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Richard,
>>> 
>>> On Jan 9, 2013, at 1:38 AM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org
>>> <x-msg://178/richard.wallis@oclc.org> > wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Re: Modeling fictional characters in movies and TV
>>>> Starting from the point of view that most of the Œrealı types of things we
>>>> want to describe could have fictional equivalents ­ fictional people
>>>> (characters), fictional organisations, fictional places, fictional
>>>> products, fictional automobiles, fictional planets, fictional fizzy drinks,
>>>> fictional races, fictional religions, fictional songs, ...., ....
>>>> 
>>>> I am thinking perhaps a more generic solution might be appropriate.
>>>> 
>>>> What about a FictionalThing type. Probably a sub-type of Intangible, having
>>>> createdIn and referencedIn properties both having an expected type of
>>>> CreativeWork.
>>>> 
>>>> To describe something as fictional you would only have to add
>>>> FictionalThing as an alternativeType, or add a typeOf attribute in RDFa.
>>>> 
>>>> That way we would not have to invent a new type for every new thing that we
>>>> find a fictional instance for.
>>> 
>>> I agree that there's a more general need here, and that anything could be
>>> fictional, but I think just adding another type doesn't really solve the
>>> problem. From my understanding of RDFS, if I have a subject with two
>>> different types, then I'm really saying that the properties associated with
>>> this subject are the intersection of those two types. It actually is sort of
>>> the reverse of this based on rdfs:domain and rdfs:range semantics. If I say
>>> the following:
>>> 
>>> schema:actor a rdf:Property
>>>   rdfs:domain schema:Person, schema:FictionalThing .
>>> 
>>> What I'm saying is that the property is on _both_ schema:Person and
>>> schema:FictionalThing. In general, I don't want 'actor' to be a property of
>>> either schema:Person or schema:Thing. Dan's introduced the notion of
>>> schema:rangeIncludes to address this problem, but the semantics haven't
>>> entirely been worked out yet. This issue is, is there a similar
>>> schema:typeIncludes that uses something closer to owl:unionOf semantics.
>>> But, using schema:additionalType (or @typeof with RDFa) won't do this,
>>> AFAIK.
>>> 
>>> The way I had actually modeled Character for Wikia was closer to the
>>> following:
>>> 
>>> wikia:Character a owl:Class
>>>   rdfs:subClassOf [ a owl:Class; owl:unionOf schema:CreativeWork,
>>> schema:Person ] .
>>> 
>>> This basically allows me to define properties on wikia:Character that done
>>> "infect" schema:Person or schema:CreativeWork.
>>> 
>>> Gregg
>>> 
>>>> ~Richard.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 09/01/2013 02:04, "Jason Douglas" <jasondouglas@google.com
>>>> <x-msg://178/jasondouglas@google.com>
>>>> <x-msg://3694/jasondouglas@google.com
>>>> <x-msg://3694/jasondouglas@google.com> > > wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>> <x-msg://178/gregg@greggkellogg.net>  <x-msg://3694/gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>> <x-msg://3694/gregg@greggkellogg.net> > > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2013, at 5:43 PM, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com
>>>>>> <x-msg://178/jasondouglas@google.com>
>>>>>> <x-msg://3694/jasondouglas@google.com
>>>>>> <x-msg://3694/jasondouglas@google.com> > > wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>>>> <x-msg://178/gregg@greggkellogg.net>
>>>>>>> <x-msg://3694/gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>>>> <x-msg://3694/gregg@greggkellogg.net> > > wrote:
>>>>>>> > TL:DR: propose adding schema:Character, schema:Location, and
>>>>>>> schema:FictionalLocation classes, along with a schema:character
>>>>>>> property.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > In the work I'm doing with Wikia, we're using extensions to schema.org
>>>>>>> <http://schema.org>  <http://schema.org <http://schema.org/> >
>>>>>>> <http://schema.org <http://schema.org/>  <http://schema.org/> >  to add
>>>>>>> structure to Wiki content. Wikia hosts hundreds of thousands of wiki's,
>>>>>>> mostly related to special-interest subjects. Important classes of these
>>>>>>> include sites about Movies, TV Shows/Series and Video Games.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Cool!!
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > The schema.org <http://schema.org>  <http://schema.org
>>>>>>> <http://schema.org/> >  <http://schema.org <http://schema.org/>
>>>>>>> <http://schema.org/> >  vocabulary is pretty useful in doing this but
>>>>>>> lacks some important properties and types:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Character class: a Character is a subclass of Person, which is
>>>>>>> intended to represent some fictional character. This could include
>>>>>>> fictional human characters, such as Sam Spade, as well as non-human
>>>>>>> characters, such as "The Cat in the Hat". As such, it could also be
>>>>>>> considered to be a union of schema:CreativeWork and schema:Person.
>>>>>>> Alternatively, it may simply be a sub-class of Creative Work which
>>>>>>> simply has some properties in common with Person (birthDate, colleague,
>>>>>>> gender, ...). Note that books can also have characters.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Character property: An important characteristic of things such as
>>>>>>> movies, and TV shows is the characters that are in them. For instance,
>>>>>>> TVEpisode has actor, director, producer and so forth, but no way to
>>>>>>> indicate the characters that are in the show. Here is where having
>>>>>>> Character class comes in handy, so that you might have the following:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > 
>>>>>>> <http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Where_No_Man_Has_Gone_Before_(episode)>
>>>>>>> >   a schema:TVEpisode;
>>>>>>> >   schema:name "Where No Man Has Gone Before"@en;
>>>>>>> >   schema:partOfTVSeries
>>>>>>> <http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series>;
>>>>>>> >   schema:character <http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk>;
>>>>>>> >   schema:actor <http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/William_Shatner> .
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > One downside of this is that when you have multiple characters you
>>>>>>> lose the ability to correlate the actor to the character.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the example below, I set schema:actor on the character
>>>>> 
>>>>> ah, missed that.
>>>>>  
>>>>>> , but it's obviously loosing some temporal information. More complex
>>>>>> modeling can be more accurate, but within the context of a single graph
>>>>>> (e.g., for a specific episode), we can probably simplify it that there is
>>>>>> a signal actor for each character, or at least a set of actors.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > An alternative, that Freebase uses, is to create a class for
>>>>>>> Performance, that has the properties of character (expects Character has
>>>>>>> you defined) and actor (which works the same as actor on today).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is sort of like an Event, which acts to join various elements
>>>>>> together (characters and actors in this case), perhaps along with
>>>>>> elements such as scenes and locations. I like the idea of having a
>>>>>> Performance class, but there may be times when simpler modeling works.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > Connecting that to TVEpisode could be done with either a new
>>>>>>> "performance" property or by making actor accept Person or Performance.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > <http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/James_T._Kirk> a schema:Character
>>>>>>> >   schema:name "James T. Kirk";
>>>>>>> >   schema:birthDate "2233-03-22"^^xsd:date;
>>>>>>> >   schema:deathDate "2371"^^xsd:gYear;
>>>>>>> >   schema:actor <http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/William_Shatner> .
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Another class of properties generally useful for works of media
>>>>>>> classes is Location. A schema:Location class could be a sub-class of
>>>>>>> schema:Place, intended to describe locations that might not be real, or
>>>>>>> not at least not having geographic coordinates you can get to using
>>>>>>> Goole Maps. A location could also be a Fictional Location, such as
>>>>>>> Middle Earth.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Lastly, many wiki's concern themselves with Video Games, which have
>>>>>>> quite deep structure. Logically, a Video Game is probably a sub-class of
>>>>>>> schema:SoftwareApplication. Of course, there are many other things that
>>>>>>> could be modeled on video games, such as levels, objectives and weapons,
>>>>>>> but having a concrete class for describing them would be quite useful.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Since the Wikia communities are the real domain experts here do you
>>>>>>> think there's any chance they could enumerate these in a public
>>>>>>> schema.org <http://schema.org>  <http://schema.org <http://schema.org/>
>>>>>>> >  <http://schema.org <http://schema.org/>  <http://schema.org/> >
>>>>>>> extension proposal?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This post was an attempt to get that started, and the most obvious
>>>>>> missing pieces are for Character and Location, along with the character
>>>>>> relationship.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Agreed, those are needed incremental additions.
>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Video Games is a deeper subject, and we can share the work we're doing,
>>>>>> but it will be a more substantive proposal. I'd really like to use it to
>>>>>> get a conversation with other people who have worked on modeling games.
>>>>>> Our current focus has been on linear first-person shooter style games,
>>>>>> but much of the work carries over to open-world/parallel mission
>>>>>> environments too. We'll come back with more on this in the future.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, Video Games is where I was hoping for a more "substantive proposal"
>>>>> as you say.  Sounds good.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> > -jason
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Gregg Kellogg
>>>>>>> > gregg@greggkellogg.net <x-msg://178/gregg@greggkellogg.net>
>>>>>>> <x-msg://3694/gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>>>>> <x-msg://3694/gregg@greggkellogg.net> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 14 January 2013 09:33:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 January 2013 09:33:22 GMT