Predicate Proposal - Characters and Characters of

Field Name: Characters

Type of value: entity

Number of values accepted: multiple

Tooltip description: Fictional person connected with a creative work

Full description: Characters which appear in this item (like plays, operas, operettas, books, comics, films, TV series, video games)

Examples of proper use:

Examples of improper use:

Usage in other schemas:

Constraints: Only applies when Subject has the “Is a” value “Person”

1 Like

Field Name: Characters of

Type of value: “entity”

Number of values accepted: “multiple”

Tooltip description: Creative work in which a fictional character appears

Full description:

Examples of proper use:

Examples of improper use:

Usage in other schemas: n/a

Constraints: Only applies when Subject has the “Is a” value “Creative Work”

@leeds @jed @jen Please take a look at

Hey! Good proposal! Im just thinking about maybe to make a separate entity called “Character”?

Hi. I think it must be an entity - Person. But I wonder what the team thinks about this.

I agree, a separate entity is better, a Character is not equal to a person

1 Like

I’d say a “Character” isn’t equivalent to a Person as well. Not even considering that characters can also be animals (e.g. a dragon, cat, etc.), the definition of “Person” on the Golden Dapp specifically says that fictional characters aren’t included.

It’s not as explicit as having a separate entity type, but Character could also be tied to Creative Work.

Edit: I do like this proposal too btw! Would be nice to distinguish fictional characters.

Nice proposal, and as Kat mentions this is a good way to distinguish fictional characters especially given that Person explicitly does not include them.

Good examples to distinguish the character and the real person (actor).

@Kat and @jen I assume we’d also want to link the Character to the Person (if any) who plays that role. One question is whether the same Character (e.g. James Bond) can appear in many movies
There are some interesting edge cases:

  • the Character is a real Person e.g. in The Crown most Characters are representing real people.
  • the Character is played by different Persons in different movies (e.g. different Bond movies)
  • a Person plays many Characters in the same Movie (e.g. Peter Sellers in Dr Strangelove)
  • a Person plays themselves (e.g. in movies like Being John Malkovitch and Oceans Twelve where Julia Roberts plays herself)

If we want to be able to specifically say that Sean Connery played James Bond in Dr No and Thunderball but Daniel Craig played James Bond in No Time To Die and Quantum of Solace then we might need Character Appearance to link a movie a Character and a Person. Which would also allow more precise linking of awards (a Person gets an acting award for playing a specific Character in a specific Movie).

1 Like

Just a reminder (about the predicate). Thank you.

Thanks for the reminder, @technopoint2020 - I am in fact working on a proposal for a new Entity Type, Fictional Character, which would be a type of Creative Work. Your proposal would need to be modified (BTW your current proposal has Subject and Object the wrong way round in the Constraints)

I’m still interested in your input on the level of detail you’d like for linking Fictional Character to movie (Creative Work) and to Person. I think it’s probably enough to link James Bond to all the actors that have played him and all the James Bond movies (and separately linking the actors to the movies) without needing Character Appearance as an entity that links the character to the movie and the actor - do you agree?
I think we’d still need a predicate linking the actor (Person) and the Fictional Character. We could use your proposed predicates but allow them to be applied to Person as well as Creative Work e.g. Daniel Radcliffe → Characters → Harry Potter.

1 Like