- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:14:11 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- CC: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
The essence of these proposals is that there is some class or property that changes the meaning of something else. My worry is that producers and consumers will need to understand all such classes and properties before they can use schema.org. peter On 10/20/2014 04:43 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: > On 20 October 2014 10:56, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote: >> +1. >> >> Is it time to resurrect my FictionalThing Type proposal? >> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/FictionalThing >> >> It was an attempt to introduce a simple way, through multi-typing, to >> identify any Thing that could be fictional. These discussions often centre >> around people/characters, but fictional-ness spreads way beyond people to >> organisations, countries, planets, languages and lumps of rock. It included >> a property to reference a [real] Thing that the fictional is a representation of. > > Could it make more sense to make this relational - fictionallyAbout or > similar - so that the relevant CreativeWork is included in the > description. This might make it easier to handle fictitious accounts > of real world entities. --Dan >
Received on Monday, 20 October 2014 12:14:41 UTC