- From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:28:37 -0500
- To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
- Cc: Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>, "Dawson, Laura" <Laura.Dawson@bowker.com>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Web Schemas TF <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
I agree with Martin about "fictional" being a pretty slippery slope. But I am kind of curious about how people who are advocating for FictionalThing anticipate it getting used. //Ed On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org> wrote: > In pure data terms I partly agree with you - there is no difference between > the description of a real or fictional thing. Except one of them has the > attribute of being fictional. > > In describing an identity, especially from the world of creative works, > there is an obvious difference between real and fictional things - which we > humans are interested in and need to describe. > > For example the first line from Sir John Falstaff's Wikipedia entry reads: > "Sir John Falstaff is a fictional character who appears in ...." > > It is fine for him to have an ISNI, something that could link to a > description that indicates that he is fictional. > > The fact that James White, used the same string of characters as a pseudonym > is an attribute of the descriptions of each of them - not an attribute of > the name itself. > > This proposal came out of need to describe characters, or other fictional > things, in film/tv metadata. A need that I believe is more generic than > that focussed requirement. > > ~Richard. > > > > > On 19/02/2013 13:32, "Michael Hopwood" <michael@editeur.org> wrote: > >> Hmmm. I've followed this fascinating thread at a distance but I thought it's a >> reasonable point to chime in; it's not so much the edge cases, it's that in >> this context, everything is an edge case. >> >> In all the relevant ontologies and schemas I've dealt with, there simply is no >> fundamental difference; for example, Sir John Falstaff has an ISNI, although >> he's fictional; he's also a literary pseudonym of James White... >> >> The reason for this is that in data, you don't describe actual people (maybe >> FOAF or VCARD are exceptions), you describe public identities. You can only >> tell the real ones from the fictional from their relationships; their >> properties are the same. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dawson, Laura [mailto:Laura.Dawson@bowker.com] >> Sent: 19 February 2013 12:50 >> To: Martin Hepp >> Cc: Thad Guidry; Richard Wallis; Web Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg >> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki >> >> There are many edge cases, but I think there are enough straightforward cases >> to warrant the attempt. >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 14:29:09 UTC