[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: semantics in schema (xsd)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: semantics in schema (xsd)
• From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:45:53 -0500
• In-reply-to: <000701c3fd38$f3a6b2d0$0201a8c0@IRENE>
• References: <20040226095808.MPLV21785.mta08-svc.ntlworld.com@Turtle> <000701c3fd38$f3a6b2d0$0201a8c0@IRENE>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 08:52:31AM -0500, Irene Polikoff wrote:
> Yes, modeling wife as a subclass of female may not be the right thing to
> do. Another option in either RDF or OWL is for wife or husband to be
> modeled as a property of male/female. It could then be said (using, for
> example, domain - range restrictions of RDF) that wife's must be females
> and husband's must be males.

But I am male, and my husband (yes, legally here in Canada) is male.

When you try to enshrine legislation in software, you have to be
willing to make changes ;-)

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
    • From: "Irene Polikoff" <Irene@t...>
  • Re: semantics in schema (xsd)
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • RE: semantics in schema (xsd)
    • From: "Irene Polikoff" <Irene@t...>

• Prev by Date: XML Schema repositiry
• Next by Date: Re: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Previous by thread: Re: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Next by thread: Re: semantics in schema (xsd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread