On Oct 20, 2014 5:15 PM, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <
martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2014, at 22:03, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The fundamental questions:
> >
> > 1) does the set of all Persons include the set of all Fictional Persons?
> yes, otherwise we would need a joint super-type anyway for those persons
of whom we do not know or do not agree whether they are real or fictional.
> >
> > 2) if not, is it important to avoid conflating the two sets?
>
> I do not think so.
I would think e-commerce to be an area where separating real business from
imaginary ones would be most important.
Further clarifying questions:
If someone is looking for a list of British Public Schools, should that
list include Eton, Harrow, and Hogwarts?
In the context of the Harry Potter books, is Hogwarts a fictional thing?
Is the play "Hamlet" a Fictional Thing ?
Is the play "The Murder of Gonzaga" a Fictional Thing?
It would seem unwise to make changes that would have such dramatic effects
on all existing application of the schema.org ontology to avoid the use of
union types in situations where fictional entities are permitted.
[Existence as a predicate of an individual is a controversial stance.
Pegasus says: step away from the metaphysics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/ ]