- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 13:30:14 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 20 October 2014 13:14, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > The essence of these proposals is that there is some class or property that > changes the meaning of something else. My worry is that producers and > consumers will need to understand all such classes and properties before > they can use schema.org. I agree; such mechanisms ought to add knowledge, not change it. If all you know is that something is a <http://schema.org/Person>, you don't know if they're alive, dead, undead, or fictional. If all you know is that something is a <http://schema.org/Event> or <http://schema.org/Action>, you don't know whether or when it happened. If all you know is that something is a <http://schema.org/Place>, you don't know how long it's been there, whether it's still there, how long it'll be around for, etc., etc. It would be a mistake to take the absence of a claim that something is fictional as an indication that it is "real", non-fictional etc. (both slippery notions anyway). There are lots of processes by which triples can 'drop off' a graph in some information pipeline, with SPARQL-based extraction being the most obvious. Dan > peter > > > > On 10/20/2014 04:43 AM, Dan Brickley wrote: >> >> On 20 October 2014 10:56, Wallis,Richard <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org> wrote: >>> >>> +1. >>> >>> Is it time to resurrect my FictionalThing Type proposal? >>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/FictionalThing >>> >>> It was an attempt to introduce a simple way, through multi-typing, to >>> identify any Thing that could be fictional. These discussions often >>> centre >>> around people/characters, but fictional-ness spreads way beyond people to >>> organisations, countries, planets, languages and lumps of rock. It >>> included >>> a property to reference a [real] Thing that the fictional is a >>> representation of. >> >> >> Could it make more sense to make this relational - fictionallyAbout or >> similar - so that the relevant CreativeWork is included in the >> description. This might make it easier to handle fictitious accounts >> of real world entities. --Dan >> >
Received on Monday, 20 October 2014 12:30:41 UTC