Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki

I like how it allows me to say pto:Moon is a product.

3 for a dollar. :-)

Seriously, though, I love it!

Jeff

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 19, 2013, at 10:53 AM, "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> 
>> It might be nice to have a variation of the Product Type Ontology that
>> assumes the owl:Class is a subclass of Thing rather than Product. That
>> way we could add types for 
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_%28arts%29
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendary_creature
>> etc.
>> 
>> Jeff
> 
> thanks for the suggestion! Actually, the current definition allows a much broader use of www.productontology.org than many assume, since the meaning of a product in GoodRelations (and thus at least now implicitly in schema.org) is that of any tangible or intangible entity on which rights (ownership, usage, ...) can be granted, or any happening that can be effected for a third party (e.g. a haircut).
> 
> So the Eiffel tower, the Moon, and even Darth Vader are conceptually valid instances of this type.
> 
> You can immediately search for a legendary creature in SPARQL:
> 
> prefix foaf: <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> 
> prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> 
> prefix pto: <http://www.productontology.org/id/> 
> prefix gr: <http://purl.org/goodrelations/v1#> 
> prefix foo: <http://example.com/> 
> 
> # Find the cheapest offer for a Legendary_creature
> 
> SELECT * WHERE{
> ?company gr:offers ?offer .
> ?offer a gr:Offering .
> ?offer gr:hasBusinessFunction gr:Sell .
> OPTIONAL {?offer rdfs:label ?label } .
> OPTIONAL {?offer gr:name ?label } .
> OPTIONAL {?offer rdfs:comment ?label } .
> OPTIONAL {?offer gr:description ?label } .
> ?offer gr:hasPriceSpecification ?p .
> ?p a gr:UnitPriceSpecification .
> ?p gr:hasCurrency ?currency .
> ?p gr:hasCurrencyValue ?price .
> ?offer gr:includes ?product .
> ?product a <http://www.productontology.org/id/Legendary_creature> .
> }
> ORDER BY (?price)
> LIMIT 10
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> Martin
> 
> 
> On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:44 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) wrote:
> 
>> It might be nice to have a variation of the Product Type Ontology that
>> assumes the owl:Class is a subclass of Thing rather than Product. That
>> way we could add types for 
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_%28arts%29
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendary_creature
>> etc.
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Martin Hepp [mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:26 AM
>>> To: Mo McRoberts
>>> Cc: LeVan,Ralph; Ed Summers; Wallis,Richard; Michael Hopwood; Dawson,
>>> Laura; Thad Guidry; Web Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg
>>> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki
>>> 
>>> On the other hand I would like to stress that the current proposal
>>> offers the option to mark an entity as a "fictional" one via
>>> additionalType. It nicely delegates any statement at the schema.org
>>> level on what entity types are fictional and which ones aren't to the
>>> user publishing markup.
>>> 
>>> Of course, resulting statements from using the attribute may be
>>> regarded as offensive, but they are then individual statements, which,
>>> in a free society, may happen to be offensive. You cannot stop anybody
>>> from making respective statements in HTML on the Web either, so there
>>> is no new problem.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:07 PM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> I'll readily admit it's by no means an easy thing to settle,
>> however:
>>> 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 don't think we ever quite solved
>> that
>>> one in the archive classifications.
>>>> 
>>>> M.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue 2013-Feb-19, at 15:00, "LeVan,Ralph" <levan@oclc.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Not only is it slippery, but potentially offensive.  As I think
>> over
>>>>> the list of names described as fictional in WorldCat Identities, I
>>>>> run into polite variants.  "Deity" for instance.  Is Krishna
>>>>> "fictional"?  We have his as a "Hindu deity".  Using this markup,
>>> are
>>>>> we going to mark them as fictional, or have to propose another
>>> property?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Looking at the list of most frequently occurring words for our
>>>>> Subject names, I see that the top one is not "fictitious", but
>>> "character".
>>>>> That looks to me like the library community has made a distinction
>>>>> between them over the years.  Are we going to combine them here?
>>>>> (Yes, I know this is better discussed on the Bibframe list, but the
>>>>> subject came up here.)  Other top terms include: deity, legendary,
>>>>> mythology, biblical, and imaginary.  As you can see, these are
>> words
>>>>> to dance around the use of "fictional".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Honestly, I'm not sure where to come down here.  I like the
>> proposal
>>>>> for a fictional attribute.  I'm just not sure that we can give
>> clear
>>>>> guidance on where it should be used.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ralph
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ed.summers@gmail.com [mailto:ed.summers@gmail.com] On Behalf
>>> Of
>>>>> Ed Summers
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:29 AM
>>>>> To: Wallis,Richard
>>>>> Cc: Michael Hopwood; Dawson, Laura; Martin Hepp; Thad Guidry; Web
>>>>> Schemas TF; Gregg Kellogg
>>>>> Subject: Re: FictionalThing proposal added to Web Schemas wiki
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Mo McRoberts - Technical Lead - The Space
>>>> 0141 422 6036 (Internal: 01-26036) - PGP key CEBCF03E, Zone 1.08,
>> BBC
>>>> Scotland, Pacific Quay, Glasgow, G51 1DA Project Office: Room 7083,
>>>> BBC Television Centre, London W12 7RJ
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----------------------------
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>>>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
>>>> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
>> specifically
>>> stated.
>>>> If you have received it in
>>>> error, please delete it from your system.
>>>> Do not use, copy or disclose the
>>>> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the
>>> sender
>>>> immediately.
>>>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
>>>> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>>>> -----------------------------
>>> 
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>> martin hepp
>>> e-business & web science research group
>>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
>>> 
>>> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
>>> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
>>> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
>>> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>>>       http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
>>> skype:   mfhepp
>>> twitter: mfhepp
>>> 
>>> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
>>> =================================================================
>>> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> 
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
> phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>        http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:   mfhepp 
> twitter: mfhepp
> 
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 02:00:39 UTC