[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:50:02 -0500
"Irene Polikoff" <Irene@topquadrant.com> wrote:
> >From the prospective of these two software languages (RDF and OWL) this
> is not an issue at all. Social implications, acceptability and
> legislature are another topics altogether :)
Liam wished to point out, I believe, that you are embedding these social
implications and legislative acts in your definitions. And, in fact,
continue to do so here, in a lengthy discussion which I am going to snip.
Instead, try this:
> <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="spouse">
> <rdfs:domain> rdf:resource="#Human" />
> <rdfs:range> rdf:resource="#Human" />
> </owl:ObjectProperty>
Here, people is people, and if you care enough to figure out the sex of
myself and my spouse, you're welcome (this assumes, of course, that Male
and Female are subclasses of Human, rather than of, for instance, Mammal
or Animal or Biota). People is people, spouses is spouses, and you don't
have to pay a programmer to change your software when a) a city decides
that that's true and refuses to enforce a law, or b) a [s]elected official
goes on the warpath to define the terms 'man' 'woman' 'one' and 'between'
(although the latter is an interesting exercise in the politicization of
semantics).
Amy!
--
Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I.
-- Pink Floyd
|
