Re: Person and fictional Re: VideoGame proposal

20.10.2014, 14:30, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com>:
> On 20 October 2014 13:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> šThe essence of these proposals is that there is some class or property that
>> šchanges the meaning of something else. My worry is that producers and
>> šconsumers will need to understand all such classes and properties before
>> šthey can use schema.org.
>
> I agree; such mechanisms ought to add knowledge, not change it.

This is the essence of what I was trying to think how to explain.

cheers

> If all you know is that something is a <http://schema.org/Person>, you
> don't know if they're alive, dead, undead, or fictional. If all you
> know is that something is a <http://schema.org/Event> or
> <http://schema.org/Action>, you don't know whether or when it
> happened. If all you know is that something is a
> <http://schema.org/Place>, you don't know how long it's been there,
> whether it's still there, how long it'll be around for, etc., etc.
>
> It would be a mistake to take the absence of a claim that something is
> fictional as an indication that it is "real", non-fictional etc. (both
> slippery notions anyway). There are lots of processes by which triples
> can 'drop off' a graph in some information pipeline, with SPARQL-based
> extraction being the most obvious.
>
> Dan
>> špeter
>>
>> šOn 10/20/2014 04:43 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>> šOn 20 October 2014 10:56, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote:
>>>> š+1.
>>>>
>>>> šIs it time to resurrect my FictionalThing Type proposal?
>>>> šššššššššhttp://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/FictionalThing
>>>>
>>>> šIt was an attempt to introduce a simple way, through multi-typing, to
>>>> šidentify any Thing that could be fictional. šThese discussions often
>>>> šcentre
>>>> šaround people/characters, but fictional-ness spreads way beyond people to
>>>> šorganisations, countries, planets, languages and lumps of rock. šIt
>>>> šincluded
>>>> ša property to reference a [real] Thing that the fictional is a
>>>> šrepresentation of.
>>> šCould it make more sense to make this relational - fictionallyAbout or
>>> šsimilar - so that the relevant CreativeWork is included in the
>>> šdescription. This might make it easier to handle fictitious accounts
>>> šof real world entities. --Dan

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Monday, 20 October 2014 15:17:43 UTC