Search engines shouldn't be fooled for long, OWA and OWL DL or not. This needs to be true for e-commerce as well, at least at this stage of the game.
How old does a child need to be before they can understand that Hogwarts is a schema:FictionalThing? Would calling it a schema:FairyTaleThing help them understand a little bit sooner? Should this wait until the child takes a graduate course in philosophy?
On Oct 20, 2014, at 8:45 PM, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com<mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014 5:15 PM, "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org<mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org<mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>> wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2014, at 22:03, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com<mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > The fundamental questions:
> >
> > 1) does the set of all Persons include the set of all Fictional Persons?
> yes, otherwise we would need a joint super-type anyway for those persons of whom we do not know or do not agree whether they are real or fictional.
> >
> > 2) if not, is it important to avoid conflating the two sets?
>
> I do not think so.
I would think e-commerce to be an area where separating real business from imaginary ones would be most important.
Further clarifying questions:
If someone is looking for a list of British Public Schools, should that list include Eton, Harrow, and Hogwarts?
In the context of the Harry Potter books, is Hogwarts a fictional thing?
Is the play "Hamlet" a Fictional Thing ?
Is the play "The Murder of Gonzaga" a Fictional Thing?
It would seem unwise to make changes that would have such dramatic effects on all existing application of the schema.org<http://schema.org> ontology to avoid the use of union types in situations where fictional entities are permitted.
[Existence as a predicate of an individual is a controversial stance.
Pegasus says: step away from the metaphysics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/ ]