Re: Person and fictional Re: VideoGame proposal

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> "Under this hope, the absence of a claim that something is fictional is
> an indication that it is real"


&

Simon Spero wrote:

> "What changes are needed to infer that a Person is not a Fictional Person?"


OK, call me a muppet instead of an elf but can't parsers/reasoners/whatever
handle the idea of 'undefined'?
Because currently there is no method to express something is fictional,
does that therefor imply everything in the schema.org universe is
non-fictional? No, it's means the fictionality of things is undefined.

And I truly don't understand why by being able to specify something is
fictional everything which isn't specified as such suddenly has to
automatically carry the load of being fictional.

Now I could get nitpicky and therefore argue that if we add a Fictional
type we then should also add a NonFictional type for those who do want to
be able to specify something is non-fictional but the question then quickly
becomes, do we expect anybody to use such a type?

But even if both were to be added, fact stays, if they're not defined the
fictionality of a thing is 'undefined'. In this muppet's world that's good
enough as I don't get paid for having philosophical dilemmas and therefor
need quick and easy methods to apply markup.

So +1 from me for the <div itemscope itemtype="http:/schema.org/Product
http://schema.org/FictionalThingyStaty">...</div>

2014-10-21 21:09 GMT+02:00 Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>:

>  On Oct 21, 2014 10:59 AM, "chaals@yandex-team.ru" <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
> wrote:
>
>  I agree that it is important not to get too hung up on metaphysics. But
>> it is also important not to get hoisted on our petards…
>
> Spot on!  And it's the engineers who get hoisted... *
>
> Let me try and explain the *real world* consequences of  the proposed
> FictionalThing mixin.
>  ------------------------------
>
> *BLUF*
>
>    1. If you define a FictionalPerson as ( FictionalThing and Person ),
>    central parts of the schema.org data model have to be changed.
>    2. Every application that only wants to handle non-fictional things
>    must be rewritten to implement these changes, and perform all necessary
>    inferencing.
>     3. It is not self-evident that such use cases make up only a small
>    minority of schema.org applications.
>    4. "Elves" have to do more typing.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *For purposes of this example, assume that the Person type is restricted
> to actual persons, living or dead (the kind who fictional characters
> resemble only "coincidentally").*
>
>  The following table compares and contrasts the Mixin approach to an
> approach using a separate class, derived from Person, but not a subclass
> thereof. My primary concern is to illustrate the implementation burdens of
> the different approaches.
>
>
>  A Fictional Person is an instance of  (FictionalThing and Person)
>  A Fictional Person is an instance of a class derived from Person
>  e.g. "Fictional(Person)"
>   What is needed to assert that something is a Fictional Person?
>  Two types must be asserted for each instance
>  One type must be asserted for each instance.
>
>   Is every Fictional Person a FictionalThing? Yes Yes  What changes are
> needed to infer this? None Either:
>
>    1. Specify simple Function mechanism so that Fictional(?X) is a
>    subclassOf FictionalThing; or
>    2. Explicitly assert that Fictional(Person) is a subclass of
>    FictionalThing
>
>  *Note that FictionalThing could be defined as equivalent to
> Fictional(Thing)*  Where do these changes need to be made?
>  N/A
>  Expansion and related inference can be handled on schema.org, or on the
> client side.
>   If Person is a subclass of Mammal, what changes are needed to infer
> that a Fictional Person is a subclass of a Fictional Mammal?
>  None
>  Either:
>
>    1. Allow Functions to be specified so that they preserve subclassing;
>    or
>     2. Explicitly assert that Fictional(Person) is a subclass of
>    Fictional(Mammal)
>
>   Where do these changes need to be made? N/A See above
>
>
> *Is every Fictional Person a Person? *
> *Yes *
> *No *  What changes are needed to infer this? None
>  None
>
>
>   What changes are needed to infer that a Person is not a Fictional
> Person?
>
>
> *The data model of schema.org <http://schema.org> needs to be changed to
> support negation. Either: *
>
>    1. *Define a mechanism to allow explicit negative assertions; or *
>    2.
> *Specify a set of inference rules including Negation as Failure,
>    explicitly defining the scoping rules for determining what facts are
>    relevant. *
>
>
> *The data model must  also be changed to  handle inconsistency. *
>  None
>   Where do these changes need to be made?
>
>    1. *The specifications of the new semantics need to be defined by the
>    schema.org <http://schema.org> partner.*
>    2. * Some  changes to existing standards may require WHAT-WG approval;
>    *
>    3. *Some changes to existing standards may require chartering new W3
>    working groups.*
>
>
> *Once these specifications are in place, all inferencing must happen on
> the client side. *
>  None
>
>   What changes need to be made to applications that only wish to handle
> Non Fictional instances.
>  *All changes listed above. *
>  None
>   What changes must be made to  applications that want to handle instance
> of various types, but do not care whether an instance is Fictional? Check
> for the presence of the specific type.
>  Either:
>
>    1. Check to see if types include either [<type> or Fictional(<type>)];
>    or
>     2. Create implicit union by giving both types in rangeincludes
>    axioms; or
>     3. Define a RealOrFictional function, such that
>    RealOrFictional(Person) is a super class of Person and Fictional(Person).
>
>   What changes must be made to  applications that wish to handle only
> instances of various Fictional types?
>  Check to see if the types for the instance includes both the desired
> type and FictionalThing
>  Check to see if the types for the instance include Fictional(<type>)
>
>
> Unless most applications are indifferent to whether individuals are real
> or fictional, imposing such a significant burden on applications that only
> wish to handle non-fictional individuals requires justification.
>
> Simon
>
> * Statement issued by Hamlet following his stabbing of Polonius several
> times through a closed Arras, claiming to mistake him for a Rat.
>
>