- 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>
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 appear: * 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 legendarium * 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..... ~Richard.
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 17:32:44 UTC