Re: Person and fictional Re: VideoGame proposal

http://schema.org/Person is exceptional in this regard.

I would hope that items belonging to nearly all schema.org classes, for 
example, http://schema.org/TVEpisode, are actual things in the real world.

Under this hope, the absence of a claim that something is fictional is an 
indication that it is real.

peter


On 10/20/2014 05:30 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 20 October 2014 13:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I agree; such mechanisms ought to add knowledge, not change it.
>
> 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
>
>> 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 Tuesday, 21 October 2014 07:28:03 UTC