- 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>
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. ~Richard. > > <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