An application that thinks all schema:Persons it finds are not fictional is
ignoring the current definition of the type: "A person (alive, dead,
undead, or fictional)." So adding a FictionalThing type just makes easier
what applications need to do now anyway.
Multityping seems more useful to me; if defining a FictionalThing I'd want
to have a partOf or belongsTo or somesuch property that can express that
Hagrid is a fictional character from the Harry Potter books, or Tatooine is
a place in the Star Wars franchise.
On 22 October 2014 03:10, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "If someone can explain to me what the driving motivator is for taking
>>> this metaphysical stance is"
>>
>>
>> uh, in my case it has absolutely nothing to do with metaphysical
>> anything. I write markup, and a lots of it. I look at what I need to
>> disambiguate and seek for solutions which help me do so. The easier and
>> more obvious those solutions are, the the bigger the chance is I'll apply
>> them.
>>
>> If the MTE route means it makes my life, and that of any other who has to
>> deal with marking up pages, easier, than I'm a happy camper. Do I worry if
>> it makes the work of those who have to extract that data fractionally more
>> difficult? Nope not a bit.
>>
>
> Jarno -
>
> I think I understand what your concerns are now, so with luck I might be
> able to explain things better.
>
> Under the mix-in scheme, the page markup would look like:
>
> <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Person"
> itemtype="http://schema.org/FictionalThing" ...>
> ...
> </div>
>
> Under the alternative I suggested, the page markup would look like:
>
> <div itemtype="http://schema.org/Fictional(Person)" ...>
> ...
> </div>
>
>
> The latter markup does not appear more complicated than the former, and
> has the advantage of not requiring making massive changes to the core of
> schema.org just to make extracting data *possible*!
>
> Under the first scheme, an application that knows about schema:Person but
> does not know about the new schema:FictionalThing *will* think it's
> looking at a description of a real Person.
>
> There will have to be a new mechanisms devised to allow webmasters to
> say that something is not a FictionalThing. Then someone will have to
> explain it to them.
>
> Under the second scheme, an application that knows about Person, but does
> not know about Fictional(Person) will see an unrecognized type.
>
> Does this make more sense?
>
> Simon
>
--
http://ankewehner.de