On Oct 20, 2014 8:16 AM, "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.
Would your issue be that if eg. Person is assumed to have some property of
"not being an abstract entity", and that asserting "fictional" of such an
individual would require defaults, since an individual that was Person and
Fictional would be inconsistent.
FOAF made the explicit decision not to make this part of the definition of
Person. This does not necessarily help with the general case.
One could augment the schema.org logic with something similar to Cyc's
FictionalFN (and similar class generating functions).
Since the precedent already exists for inferring meaning from the syntactic
form of a class name ("/" as subclass/subproperty definition), one could
use "fictional(Park)" as the class of an imaginary parks.
The function could be declared as preserving subclass relationships between
classes of fictional things ( fictional(Park) is a subclass of
fictional(Place)).
No subclass relationship between fictional(Park) and Park would be
entailed.
This approach would avoid having to manually add a fictional version of
every possible class, allow fictional things to be ignored by applications
that don't want to know about them, and allow special cases for
applications that only care about a few kinds of fictional things.
Nice and backwards compatible.
Simon