[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Some application domains care to make a difference between husbands and
wifes, others do not - in these cases the use of a spouse is more
appropriate. My point was that there are technical mechanisms in OWL
that allow us to implement what Liam wanted to do, and what Pedro wanted
to. How exactly, depends on the need of the application and I have no
interest in arguing over it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:amyzing@talsever.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:27 AM
To: Irene Polikoff
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] semantics in schema (xsd)
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
|
