- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 16:34:53 +0100
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
- Cc: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Aaron Bradley <aaranged@gmail.com>, Jerome Mourits <jmourits@google.com>, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>, Yuliya Tikhokhod <tilid@yandex-team.ru>, Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@unibw.de>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 17 October 2014 16:24, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: > Freebase also went with a FictionalCharacter type...and we used a property > on it called "Based On" to hold the person that the character is based on. > > On the reverse side, We also added a new type for a person called Person In > Fiction > https://www.freebase.com/fictional_universe/person_in_fiction?schema= So > basically, in Freebase, persons get multi-typed if they had a role in > Fiction somehow. > > (but in Schema.org the Person In Fiction does not have to be a new type at > all, it could be a property or Role or whatever works) > > +1 to add a new FictionalCharacter type... Schema.org WILL need it, rest > assured. I think we're more likely to put the 'fictionality' workload onto specific properties. Person has "A person (alive, dead, undead, or fictional)." But that attitude is relevant across countless other types too. We have Place, and lots of kinds of places, e.g. http://schema.org/CafeOrCoffeeShop I don't expect FictionalPlace, FictionalCafeOrCoffeeShop will be needed. Or FictionalEvent, etc. FictionalVolcano is tempting though. Dan
Received on Friday, 17 October 2014 15:35:21 UTC