On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:17 AM, <chaals@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > 20.10.2014, 14:30, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@google.com>: > > 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. > > This is the essence of what I was trying to think how to explain. > +1 - I was nodding furiously with your initial post. So in essence the proposal is to add a new property, http://schema.org/fictional, with a Domain of Thing and a range of Boolean? This way, if one makes a video game that includes Winston Churchill playing one of the Three Stooges, one can use about="http://www.freebase.com/m/082xp" (per Jeff Young) to identify that the character is based on Winston Churchill but add in fictional="http://schema.org/True" to assert that it's a fictionalized version & please don't aggregate quotes from this game with those of real historical value. I do believe that the property would be additive, not transformative. That said, I suspect that in practice that the "fiction" property will simply be left out of descriptions of clearly fictional characters, such as Twilight from My Little Pony. And that seems all right too.
Received on Monday, 20 October 2014 15:36:27 UTC