- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:18:13 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 21 Oct 2014, at 13:49, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > So to determine whether some schema.org thing is real or not requires some web lookup? Where? How? Will there be documentation? > No. I said that one way of solving the pending isssue is to assume that being fictitious is a specialization of being. Then, we have no problem with treating existing types in schema.org as including a) currently existing, b) previously existing, and c) fictional entities, and handle the information, if available, that something is indeed fictitious by using the intersection of the main type with the FictionalThing type. We could have lengthy and imo useless discussions here on what "real" means. In the context of schema.org, we will want to be able to represent information about Pompeii, Atlantis, Frankfurt, and New York city without the need to agree on whether they are real or are not. Some people claim that the German city "Bielefeld" does not exists [1] ;-) Some people argue whether King Arthur, Pythagoras, John Henry, Homer, Robin Hood and others were real or fictional [2]; still, they can be perfectly represented by http://schema.org/Person. I just repeat that schema.org representations are a kind of "proto-data" that typically requires some, often heuristic, pre-processing before the actual processing of the data can take place. And I trust that Google et al. will make sure that Atlantis will not show up as a travel suggestion in search results. We cannot and should not try to put all subtleties of the world in a single schema, and even more so not in schema.org with a pretty clear mission and purpose. Martin [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielefeld_Conspiracy [2] http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/6-historical-figures-who-may-or-may-not-have-existed Best wishes Martin On 21 Oct 2014, at 13:49, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > So to determine whether some schema.org thing is real or not requires some web lookup? Where? How? Will there be documentation? > > peter > > On 10/21/2014 02:50 AM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: >> I think we could live with the assumption that being fictional is a particular quality of being, so modeling it as a multi-typed entity, i.e. the intersection between the original class and a FictitiousThing type, is both logically valid and practically feasible. >> >> You are right that we should think a bit more about a default mechanism in schema.org. We already have a few parts with weakly defined notions of defaults. For example, if a unit of measurement code is missing in the GoodRelations part of schema.org, one can typically assume that it is "C62" for "no unit" or "piece". >> >> Of course, we do not want fictitious places to show up on Google Maps or Google Places, nor see fictitious products and services in Google Shopping. But since search engines use 200+ signals to judge the meaning and relevance of a Web resource, I do not think that adding a mechanism for fictitious things, in combination with an informally agreed default of an entity being real, will cause any real problems. Plus, fictitious things could become real at any later point in time. >> >> Best >> Martin >> >> >> >> >> On 21 Oct 2014, at 09:27, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 12:18:54 UTC