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 17:31:53 +0000
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Mo McRoberts <Mo.McRoberts@bbc.co.uk>
CC: "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>, 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>
Message-ID: <CD496789.5CE5%richard.wallis@oclc.org>
On 19/02/2013 15:54, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> I had a quick chat with Guha recently re FictionalX. His suggestion
> was that fictitiousness was not best expressed with special types, but
> with special properties.

I would agree if fictional was only a state - I flirted with the idea of
proposing a Boolean 'fictional' property on Thing.  But that denies the
possibility of identifying the context in which a fictional thing exists
(even fictionally ;).

Searching for fictional things in Wikipedia soon identifies a pattern of
needing to describe them in the context of creative work(s) in which they

* Lilliput and Blefuscu are two fictional island nations that appear in the
first part of the 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels
* Mount Doom is a fictional volcano in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth
* Kryptonite is a fictional material from the Superman mythos
* The Nautilus is the fictional submarine captained by Nemo featured in
Jules Verne's novels

Hence my proposal for a Type with properties to satisfy that need, as I
believe that overloading Thing with properties that are only relevant if the
thing is fiction would be possibly confusing.  Happy to be convinced
otherwise but.....

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 17:32:44 UTC

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