[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Also, marital status has a habit of changing. It is commonly asserted that
marriage is life-changing and divorce is messy. Imagine how much moreso if
the future wife had to change her class in order to become a wife and then
possibly a former wife. And again when she spoke of her past days as a wife
or future wife.
In many applications, it would probably be better to model a sequence of
marital status objects associated with an individual.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Megginson" <dmeggin@attglobal.net>
To: "XML Developers List" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] semantics in schema (xsd)
> 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.
>
> That's a lesson we've learned the hard way in the Object-Oriented
> programming world over the past decade or two. Deep semantic subclassing
is
> almost always a bad idea -- it makes programs hard to maintain and update,
> and I'll be that it does the same thing to RDF-based taxonomies.
>
> As far as I've seen, most object-oriented programmers have moved from
heavy
> subclassing to light subclassing with more aggregation. I wonder what
|
