- 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