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

Thanks everyone - the message is clear: do not create a class of Person 
to make a distinction between Daniel Radcliffe and Harry Potter. 
person:Person will disappear into the ether when next it is edited.

But... next question:

Which Person class should be used instead? foaf:Person or schema:Person? 
Both well defined, both in widespread use etc.

I had a similar problem years ago in a different context where we wanted 
to say "use foaf:Agent" but had to respect that fact that DCMI was a 
more stable spec and so should say "use dcterms:Agent" (and this was 
before foaf:Agent declared that it was an equivalent class). The fudge 
was to say "use *an* Agent Class" and we left it at that. Not sure we 
could just say "use *a* Person class in this context

On 27/09/2012 15:13, Chris Beer wrote:
>
> +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
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://www.w3.org/egov/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Thursday, 27 September 2012 15:57:47 UTC