Re: VideoGames

> But a fictional character isn't a subclass of Person, it's something
entirely different.

As per the description of Person, a Person may be "alive, dead, undead, or
*fictional*."  It's about the entity's person-ness, rather than their being
a real person or a fictional person.

Insofar as its currently modeled, a *character *- in the characterName
sense - is about a role being performed (being, as it is, a property of a
Role type).  It's about the entity having a named role in a creative work
(currently limited to a performing role), rather than about their
person-ness (a character need not be a person - as in any number of
creatures that have a role in fantasy movies like Lord of the Rings).

So from a schema.org perspective is the entity Faith in the video game
Mirror's Edge a person or character?  She's definitely a fictional person.
 And she's equally a character - but not a character in a performance role.

While I'm not altogether sure that extending person here would be "wrong" I
agree it might muddy the waters.  If "characterName" were simply extended
so it was also a valid property of VideoGame might that work?






On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looking good!  A number of comments on specific types and properties.
>>
>> >  elf Pavlik  perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org via listhub.w3.org
>> > What do you think about
>> > adding schema:GameCharacter extending schema:Person
>>
>> +1 for some version of this (I would opt for the Game property
>> "character" which would have the expected type "Person").
>>
>
> But a fictional character isn't a subclass of Person, it's something
> entirely different.  In other schema.org contexts this is modeled as
> https://schema.org/characterName which, being a simple string, isn't very
> satisfying, but at least it isn't wrong the in the way that extending
> Person is.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>