W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2013

Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki

From: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:43:11 +0000
To: Michael Hopwood <michael@editeur.org>, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
CC: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, "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>
Message-ID: <CD494E0F.5CCB%richard.wallis@oclc.org>

On 19/02/2013 15:22, "Michael Hopwood" <michael@editeur.org> wrote:

> Thanks Mo!
> That's exactly the central edge case (oops): "what about real people appearing
> 'as themselves' in a fictional work? The person themselves is as real as you
> or I, but the events in which they participate are fictional"

I would probably suggest that the real person "playing themselves" in a
movie would be described as a Person not a Character.

> Or - what about where the events & people are all real, but there are several
> versions of each? In the end you come back to the central problem, "who says?"
> or "where does it say"?

That is an issue of provenance, reputation and trust of the description and
its author - not the vocabulary used to represent it.


> <indecs> [1] and CIDOC-CRM [2], and schemas based on them, both deal with this
> by simply adding explicit provenance, and allowing person, thing & event as
> subject (e.g. in LIDO [3] or ONIX [4])...
> [1] http://www.doi.org/topics/indecs/indecs_framework_2000.pdf
> [2] www.cidoc-crm.org/
> [3] http://www.lido-schema.org/schema/v1.0/lido-v1.0-schema-listing.html
> [4] http://www.editeur.org/83/Overview/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mo McRoberts [mailto:Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: 19 February 2013 15:07
> To: LeVan,Ralph
> Cc: Ed Summers; Wallis,Richard; Michael Hopwood; Dawson, Laura; Martin Hepp;
> Thad Guidry; Web Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg
> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki
> As I understand it, the BBC's internal archive classification scheme wrestled
> with precisely this issue - in the end it settled on 'people', 'fictional
> people' and 'religious entities', with some fairly clear guidelines about what
> to do if there was doubt about which of latter two somewhere should sit (and
> all three were considered mutually exclusive). At least then the consumer of
> the data can deal with the information as it sees fit.
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 15:44:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:48:53 UTC