- From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:27:02 +0000
- To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-schemabibex@w3.org" <public-schemabibex@w3.org>
- CC: Owen Stephens <owen@ostephens.com>
Thanks for clarification Karen. The thing we need to take into account when using something like Schema.org is that they use classes to describe real world Things, such as people - their names, and possibly pseudonyms, being just properties of that Person. So a [library world] personal name will end up being mapped to the 'name' property of a Person <http://schema.org/Person>. Likewise a [library world] corporate name will end up being mapped to the name property of an Organisation <http://schema.org/Organization>. We may suggest that the description for the additionalName property of Person be adjusted to allow for it to contain a pseudonym. ~Richard. On 12/11/2012 15:07, "Karen Coyle" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: > > > On 11/12/12 8:31 AM, Richard Wallis wrote: > >> >> Two authors writing under a single name has me stumped at the moment, >> and I think we would have difficulty in convincing the Schema.org folks >> to make changes to cope with such an edge case. Perhaps we should >> default to describing them as a Person with an explanatory note as a >> description (not liking that I have just said that.) > > Richard, I don't think that the library data that we have today > distinguishes between "real" names and pseudonyms. I see nothing in the > authority record that encodes this either. So what we have is "personal > names" (and it's not "person" it's "personal name"), corporate names, > family names, and each of these can either be an Agent (1XX, 7XX, 8XX) > or a subject (6XX). That's it, at least in the MARC world. It would be > interesting to hear from a wider international group if there are > library standards that include more information about the relationship > between the name and a Real World Object. > > kc > > >> >> ~Richard. >> >> >> On 09/11/2012 19:58, "Owen Stephens" <owen@ostephens.com> wrote: >> >> Not to mention fictional representations of real people in >> literature, film etc. >> >> I understand the desire to label characters/organisations as >> fictional, but I'm not clear what the use case is? What are we >> trying to enable with this apart from 'better description'? >> >> Owen >> >> Owen Stephens >> Owen Stephens Consulting >> Web: http://www.ostephens.com >> Email: owen@ostephens.com >> Telephone: 0121 288 6936 >> >> On 9 Nov 2012, at 21:25, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote: >> >> The "fictional" category here is a bit ambiguous, if I interpret >> this discussion correctly. There are characters that appear in >> fiction (Sherlock Holmes); there are named personae that >> represent a person, such as pseudonyms ("Mark Twain"), and there >> are also personae that are not 1-to-1 with a person, such as two >> or more authors who write together under a single personal name. >> The former is fictional, the latter two are real. To my >> knowledge, library cataloging treats these two cases, invented >> fictional characters and personae that function as creators, as >> two different things. Only one of these is an Agent in the sense >> of dc:creator. >> >> Finding a bright line to separate these two types of "persons" >> is not easy. Film librarians have told me that users expect to >> find "Mickey Mouse" or "Nemo" in the same way that they would >> find the names of actors in a film. And the "Lassie" example is >> a real poser since Lassie was both a character but also the >> "actor" in the films. Library cataloging only treats the >> fictional characters as subject headings (and topical, not >> personal subject headings). >> >> I think one needs to follow the example of FOAF and say that if >> someone gives it a personal name then it is a person. That's the >> reverse of what has been the main approach so far, which is "if >> it's a person, then code it as a personal name." >> >> kc >> >> On 11/8/12 1:29 PM, Richard Wallis wrote: >> >> Assuming that you define a ghost as a Person, yes. >> >> Presuming that we lobbied successfully to add a Boolean >> 'isFictional' >> property to the Schema.org <http://Schema.org> Thing class >> any other class that inherits from >> Thing could use it. >> >> Check out the description of the Person class >> <http://schema.org/Person> 'A >> person (alive, dead, undead, or fictional).' and you will >> see the five >> properties inherited from Thing listed at the top. >> >> ~Richard. >> >> >> On 08/11/2012 16:17, "Pilsk, Suzanne" <PilskS@si.edu> wrote: >> >> This is the discussion that goes on in the library >> cataloging standards group >> - that crops up when a new batch of catalogers are >> trained and are surprised >> by the "rules". >> >> >> Casper the friendly ghost - fictional to some, a real >> ghost to others. >> Lassie - the dog - a real dog - actually played by >> multiple canines. >> >> I like the idea of a person is a person who is fictional >> vs taking a "fake >> personality" and making it a "thing". >> >> We have a linked data project in the works with FAKE >> Botanists. >> >> So Richard, are you saying it would be person (is >> fictional) - under "Thing"? >> >> Suzanne >> >> >> Suzanne C. Pilsk >> Head, Metadata Unit >> Smithsonian Institution Libraries >> Connecting. Ideas. Information. You. >> 10th & Constitution Avenues, NW, NH2207 >> MRC 154, P.O. Box 37012 >> Washington, DC 20013-7012 >> v. 202.633.1646 >> PilskS@si.edu >> Please consider the environment before printing this >> email. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Wallis [mailto:richard.wallis@oclc.org] >> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:15 PM >> To: Dawson, Laura; public-schemabibex@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Itemprop for person >> >> In the Schema.org world the 'Thing' class is what every >> other class inherits >> properties from, so a Person, an Organization, a Book, a >> Product, are all >> Things. >> >> ~Richard. >> >> >> On 08/11/2012 16:12, "Dawson, Laura" >> <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote: >> >> Is a fictional character a person or a thing? >> >> Oooh, philosophy! "What is the nature of a thing?" >> >> Laura Dawson >> Product Manager, Identifiers >> Bowker >> laura.dawson@bowker.com >> ________________________________________ >> From: Richard Wallis [richard.wallis@oclc.org] >> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 4:07 PM >> To: Dawson, Laura; public-schemabibex@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Itemprop for person >> >> The more I think about it, the more inclined I am to >> suggest that this >> is a suggested new property for 'Thing' - most any >> type of thing you >> describe could be fictional. >> >> ~Richard >> >> >> On 08/11/2012 15:55, "Dawson, Laura" >> <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote: >> >> I like this very much! >> >> Laura Dawson >> Product Manager, Identifiers >> Bowker >> laura.dawson@bowker.com >> ________________________________________ >> From: Richard Wallis [richard.wallis@oclc.org] >> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 3:48 PM >> To: Dawson, Laura; public-schemabibex@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Itemprop for person >> >> Interesting thought also applicable for >> Organization (such as >> Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry) >> >> ~Richard. >> >> On 08/11/2012 15:35, "Dawson, Laura" >> <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com> wrote: >> >> Could we possibly add an ³isfictional² tag? To >> identify characters >> (such as Sherlock Holmes)? Some fictional >> characters will eventually >> have ISNIs and we¹ll need to structure data >> around them. >> >> Laura Dawson >> Product Manager, Identifiers >> Bowker >> Land: (908) 219-0082 >> Cell: (917) 770-6641 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 15:27:32 UTC