[Data-modeling] Which universe is that human from?

[Ed Laurent]

There are certain characteristics of humans that are universal to all
universes. Therefore we could probably describe a generic Human type with
properties that are universal to all humans. Same goes for elves. However,
it may also be useful in some special cases  to consider a "[Fictional
universe] human" that has human properties and is co-typed with fictional
universe specific organism properties.

For example, specific characters could be modeled as a dog like
Scooby-Doo<http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f80000000003c04f4>but
would be co-typed with Scooby-Doo universe character properties if
necessary. So... Scooby-Doo is a dog but is also a Scooby-Doo universe
character co-type which means he has a property to describe a minimum daily
Scooby-snack requirement or other such property that only makes sense in the
Scooby-Doo universe.

A problem may arise, however, if the fictional universe has established
taxonomic relationships unique to the universe. For example, the universe
may define elves as a subspecies of humans. How can this information be
maintained within the context of the fictional universe without adulterating
the systematics of the non-fictional universe?

-Ed


On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Jeff Prucher <jeff at metaweb.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
> > [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of
> > Daniel E. Renfer
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:42 PM
> > To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Which universe is that human from?
> >
> > Tim Kientzle wrote:
> > > It seems that you could simplify this in many cases by
> > using two types
> > > instead of one:
> > >
> > > 1) Human, Elf, etc.
> > >
> > > 2) "Star Wars Character", "D&D Character", etc.
> > >
> > > "Midichlorian level" seems an appropriate property of a "Star Wars
> > > Character", not of "Human."  (Or perhaps "Midichlorian-having
> > > character," to follow an emerging trend of having single-property
> > > mix-in types.)
> >
> > a "Midichlorian-having character," could also conceivably
> > have the property "Side of Force favored"
> > >
> > > Of course, there are always ugly exceptions and corner
> > cases that will
> > > demand a very specific type such as "Human appearing in Volume 3 of
> > > XXXX as envisioned by YYY,"
> > > but those should be unusual.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Tim Kientzle
> >
> > The issue of humans in fictional universes get even harder
> > when you take into account all the other fictional universes
> > not yet created. Unless I am misunderstanding the way the
> > whole fictional universe concept is supposed to work, every
> > fictional character should belong to a fictional universe,
> > and a fictional universe should pretty much cover any other
> > work of fiction that the original work of fiction's
> > characters also appeared in. Ie. Spin-off, linked, and some
> > cross-over shows would all share a universe, but other shows
> > would each have their own fictional universe, no matter
> > closely based on "reality" it is. Am I right in that view?
> >
> > It would get really annoying if there had to be a "human"
> > type for the "Seinfeld Universe", but how else would you say
> > that "Jerry Seinfeld" is a "human" "fictional character"
> > based on a "human" "person or being in fiction"?
>
> Regardless of the outcome of this discussion (one human vs. many humans),
> there wouldn't be a separate "human" species for every fictional universe
> out there, just those in which "human" means something other than "Homo
> sapiens" -- which is probably mostly a smallish set of fantasy universes.
> Universes in which the setting is intended to be a representation of the
> real world, including those set in the future or alternate versions of
> this
> world, would use the bog-standard "human" topic, just as Snoopy and Lassie
> are both dogs, so Jerry Seinfeld, James T. Kirk, and Sherlock Holmes are
> all
> humans.
>
> I would also go so far as to say that not every work of fiction
> necessarily
> needs to have a fictional universe created for it -- only those which can
> usefully make use of the other types and properties that "fictional
> universe" gets you probably need to have it filled in. We could have a
> "Romeo-and-Juliet-verse" but I doubt it would be very interesting.
>
> Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freebase.com/pipermail/data-modeling/attachments/20080402/aecde640/attachment-0001.htm