I agree with James—<person> seems like the right element for data about both fictional and real people, and I like the idea of adding @type on <person>. (I foresee questions about how this differs from @role and while I can imagine how I’d answer them, it would be great to get a party line on this!)
And I think it would be reasonable to use a separate <person> element for the person-in-disguise if indeed that person had different attributes that were meaningful within the system of identification one is using to describe one’s persons. In other words, if the information that one finds salient about a “person” in your data universe includes their characteristic headgear, facial hair, apparent height, accent, and handedness, then those features of the disguise would register as distinguishing marks that differentiate one person from another (at least within this narrative). The encoding isn’t representing ontology but phenomenology of personhood (am I getting this right?). The relationship between the <person> and the disguised <person> could presumably be described using <relation>.
On Feb 20, 2014, at 11:55 AM, James Cummings <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 20/02/14 16:21, Martin Holmes wrote:
>> There is by no means a clear distinction between a real person
>> and a fictional person; "real" people appear in fiction all the
>> time doing things they never really did. In some contexts
>> (biblical "history", for instance), it's impossible to know
>> whether a figure in a text represents a genuine historical
>> figure or not; wars are fought over such things. Was Jesus
>> real? How about Noah or Jonah? What about Homer? Do I don't
>> think it makes sense to say that <person> can only be used for
>> "real" people, although it may not be appropriate for
> Isn't this really an argument for @type on person? I don't
> distinguish between real and fictional people, one could argue
> that everyone outside of me is fictional in one way or another.
> Can you really 'know' another person? (And other predictably
> sophomoric questions...) I don't really believe in Homer, but
> would have no qualms making a person element for him (or his
> distant metaphysical relation Homer Simpson).