[foaf-dev] foaf:Person vs crm:E21.Person
danbri at danbri.org
Thu Jun 4 21:03:27 CEST 2009
On 4/6/09 20:12, Marco Neumann wrote:
> Thanks Dan for the elaboration.
> In the spirit of the FOAF vocabulary doesn't it go to far to consider an
> imaginary person?
On the Web, not every page is true. Just as HTML doesn't require every
page to tell the truth, neither should FOAF or RDF. Another reason is
that sometimes, the description doesn't contain enough information for
anyone to know whether the Person was real or not.
"This is a picture of Marco stood next to a painting of someone called
John", "This is a photo of a sculpture of a young man", "This is a story
about George Bush Jr's great-great-grandson", "This is a blog comment
made by someone who said their name was Anonymous Al."... All of those
statements need some way of mentioning the idea of a person. I don't see
any great need for FOAF to say some of them are out-of-scope. So they're
all in scope, that's all we have for now...
> If a foaf:Person can be a fictional person not just a historical figure
> but a truly imaginary one, I can never be a friend of that person expect
> in case of a mental extension to reality not to say a borderline
> schizophrenic situation.
Agreed. Being able to talk about non-existent, fictitious, idealised or
dead people doesn't bring them to life!
> That said I typically prefer foaf:Person over crm:E21 for web resources
> since it's more commonly used. But we might need a companion or
> extension for a fictional character.
I agree that more conventions are needed around fiction. I hope the nice
folk at the BBC will supply some concrete use cases here, eg. around
fan-maintained life histories in a Semantic Wiki. When a soap runs for
30+ years, keeping track of that alternate world is quite hard; and is a
real issue when new writers need to catch up on things the fan-base know
intimately (including past mental states of the fictional people). FOAF
doesn't solve all these problems out of the box, for sure!
Re crm:E21 and cultural heritage apps., there are also some developments
in the library world around the FRBR and RDA initiatives. I'd like to
allign FOAF's classes with the needs of that community too. From a quick
look, it might involve adding a Family class and explaining how it
relates to foaf:Group, and how Organization relates to corporate entities...
> I think we don't capture imaginary characters as typed entities in the
> crm at this point. I need to confirm this though with the SIG.
It's probably a huge can of worms if you want to model it "properly".
The FOAF hack is just to say "if you use the Person class in this way,
nothing's going to explode"...
What're you building, may I ask? :)
More information about the foaf-dev