Re: The Existence, Presence, Fictitiousness of a Thing as a Property?

That's tricky, but I would think Person (with death date, role, and/or link to wikipedia page etc.) in the former, and Character in the latter.

On 06/20/2022 1:52:51 PM, Jason Pelish <> wrote:
Ahh that explains why it wasn't described as a sub-type. Lol.
As a Property, Character uses Person in context. But what if I am curating a page dedicated to a character, where the MainEntity is only the character?
Is Abraham Lincoln a "character"? Most people, using the fictional definition of character, would say "no". And if all you had was the SD definitions currently you'd probably conclude "no" to the same question.

But what about "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter"? Is that a character now because a role we can all agree is fictional is applied to him? All this grey area and interpretation would make the process of concluding "character or not character" difficult to program or develop a flowchart around.

Again, thanks for clarifying that. 👍

Jason Pelish

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 2:15 PM Martin Bean < []> wrote:

“character” isn’t a type. It’s a property of the CreativeWork type. If you look at [], it says that values are still expected to be of the type Person.

On 20 Jun 2022, at 19:09, Jason Pelish < []> wrote:

Thank you for pointing that out. I was not aware of Character. In fact, I believed Person had no sub-types. What would be the name for a Person who isn't a character.

I was thinking about this more in the context of Patanjali's sutras on types of Knowledge and whether knowledge is first hand or second hand.

I was thinking about these qualifications, these values for a yet-to-be-named Property of Thing:

The general idea is that the existence of things should be qualified.

In cases of publishing SD the publisher is aware of existence of the thing being described via:
A. 3rd or greater party accounts & testimony
B. Direct 2nd hand testimony from people with first hand experience.
C. 1st hand experience of a said thing
D. Naught HAND experience when the describer is the described, when the Schema is for Person and the Person is the Publisher/Author

Also when something is know to be fictional we can qualify it as
1. Testimony of having invented, imagined or described a thing without bringing a real world instance of the thing into existence.
2. 2nd hand acounts of people who have claimed to invent, imagine or describe the thing being described.
3. Accounts of the thing being described where the origin or existence is uncertain.

For example, what could be more authoritative information about a Person above what comes from the Person themselves? Who would be more certain that Harry Potter isn't a real wizard lad than J.K. Rowling? Hearing from the actual person "I am real" and hearing from the inventor of a character "this is all from my imagination" is a lot more reliable than hearing from other sources. No?

On Mon, Jun 20, 2022, 12:04 PM Hans Polak < []> wrote:

Good afternoon,

I'm not an expert, but [] is for fictional characters.
Then, there's also [], and [].
The [] type also exists.

Yours sincerely,
Hans Polak

On 19/6/22 1:20, [] wrote:

Hello Everyone,
The schema for Person is described to be applicable to:
“A person (alive, dead, undead, or fictional).”
But… what Property of Person, or any other Thing for that matter, indicates whether the Thing actually exists, is instanced in reality, has real presence as opposed to being only entirely imaginary or fictional?
Shouldn’t this be explicit, not implied by other Properties or some other Type or Sub-type?
Jason Pelish
Founding Partner – Marketer
Massive Impressions Online Marketing
Boca Raton, FL 33431
(561) 232-2424
(866) 800-3579 [] - Massive Impressions site [] - The Click Whisperer site [] – 4boca Local site

Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2022 09:36:21 UTC