Re: Fictitious people? [was Re: Shall People die?]

+1

However, while defining a class of "real people" may not be called for, certainly there is enough of a case to be made for describing a specific class of general or average people. For instance in the context of describing concepts such as an average person in terms of census data

 (Psuedocode!) eg: The average <foaf:person> <hasRole:Accountant> <hasResidence:Antartica> is cold and stupid for living there. :)

C.



Sent from Samsung MobileSandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:On 09/27/2012 09:24 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> [Off-topic for the more important thread.]
>
> On 27/09/12 14:02, Phil Archer wrote:
>
>> person:Person is a sub class of both foaf:Person and schema:Person
>> because the latter two include fictitious people - not particularly
>> relevant to public sector data exchange.
>
> Public sector data exchange includes people who don't exist, either 
> deliberately (e.g. artificial persona created by a publisher to 
> protect privacy) or because that's the nature of the data (e.g. how 
> many member registrations on public sector social networks are genuine?).
>
> I not convinced that's sufficient grounds to distinguish foaf:Person 
> and person:Person and doing so prevents people using things like 
> person:patronymic more broadly.
>

Indeed.   I can't see any use for defining a class of "real" people, at 
least in a data feed.   The other data about them -- like whether they 
are alive, where they reside, what country they are a citizen of -- is 
much more useful, verifiable, and as far as I can tell obviates any 
notion of "real".

    -- Sandro



> Dave
>
>
>