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. <br>
<br>
For example, specific characters could be modeled as a dog like <a href="http://www.freebase.com/view/guid/9202a8c04000641f80000000003c04f4">Scooby-Doo</a>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
-Ed<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Jeff Prucher <<a href="mailto:jeff@metaweb.com">jeff@metaweb.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:data-modeling-bounces@freebase.com">data-modeling-bounces@freebase.com</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:data-modeling-bounces@freebase.com">data-modeling-bounces@freebase.com</a>] On Behalf Of<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d">> Daniel E. Renfer<br>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 4:42 PM<br>
> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list<br>
> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Which universe is that human from?<br>
><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> Tim Kientzle wrote:<br>
> > It seems that you could simplify this in many cases by<br>
> using two types<br>
> > instead of one:<br>
> ><br>
> > 1) Human, Elf, etc.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2) "Star Wars Character", "D&D Character", etc.<br>
> ><br>
> > "Midichlorian level" seems an appropriate property of a "Star Wars<br>
> > Character", not of "Human." (Or perhaps "Midichlorian-having<br>
> > character," to follow an emerging trend of having single-property<br>
> > mix-in types.)<br>
><br>
> a "Midichlorian-having character," could also conceivably<br>
> have the property "Side of Force favored"<br>
> ><br>
> > Of course, there are always ugly exceptions and corner<br>
> cases that will<br>
> > demand a very specific type such as "Human appearing in Volume 3 of<br>
> > XXXX as envisioned by YYY,"<br>
> > but those should be unusual.<br>
> ><br>
> > Cheers,<br>
> ><br>
> > Tim Kientzle<br>
><br>
> The issue of humans in fictional universes get even harder<br>
> when you take into account all the other fictional universes<br>
> not yet created. Unless I am misunderstanding the way the<br>
> whole fictional universe concept is supposed to work, every<br>
> fictional character should belong to a fictional universe,<br>
> and a fictional universe should pretty much cover any other<br>
> work of fiction that the original work of fiction's<br>
> characters also appeared in. Ie. Spin-off, linked, and some<br>
> cross-over shows would all share a universe, but other shows<br>
> would each have their own fictional universe, no matter<br>
> closely based on "reality" it is. Am I right in that view?<br>
><br>
> It would get really annoying if there had to be a "human"<br>
> type for the "Seinfeld Universe", but how else would you say<br>
> that "Jerry Seinfeld" is a "human" "fictional character"<br>
> based on a "human" "person or being in fiction"?<br>
<br>
</div></div>Regardless of the outcome of this discussion (one human vs. many humans),<br>
there wouldn't be a separate "human" species for every fictional universe<br>
out there, just those in which "human" means something other than "Homo<br>
sapiens" -- which is probably mostly a smallish set of fantasy universes.<br>
Universes in which the setting is intended to be a representation of the<br>
real world, including those set in the future or alternate versions of this<br>
world, would use the bog-standard "human" topic, just as Snoopy and Lassie<br>
are both dogs, so Jerry Seinfeld, James T. Kirk, and Sherlock Holmes are all<br>
humans.<br>
<br>
I would also go so far as to say that not every work of fiction necessarily<br>
needs to have a fictional universe created for it -- only those which can<br>
usefully make use of the other types and properties that "fictional<br>
universe" gets you probably need to have it filled in. We could have a<br>
"Romeo-and-Juliet-verse" but I doubt it would be very interesting.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
Jeff<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Data-modeling mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Data-modeling@freebase.com">Data-modeling@freebase.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling" target="_blank">http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>