OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Occurrence Question

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Occurrence Question
  • From: "Fraser Goffin" <goffinf@hotmail.com>
  • Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:48:43 +0100
  • Bcc:
  • In-reply-to: <BAY0-MC4-F13AIOx3aY0054c39a@bay0-mc4-f13.bay0.hotmail.com>

Well ok for that use case probably not, perhaps my use of the word 'always' 
was a bit rash.

But in another case where I *do* have an 'Amanda Sproggins' on the payrol 
and if I explicitly wanted to model the absence of 'Amanda Sproggins' in 
some important context then I would *typically* :-) prefer to represent the 
'Amanda' instance concretely rather than assume absence has meaning (given 
that that piece of data not turning up could be for any number of reasons).


>From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
>To: "'Fraser Goffin'" <goffinf@hotmail.com>,<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
>Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Occurrence Question
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:12:58 +0100
> > FWIW, from a style perspective I always prefer to create an
> > *explicit*
> > specification of a semantic rather than making assumptions about the
> > presence/absence of an information item !
>So if your company doesn't employ anyone called Amanda Sproggins, you would
>have an element to reflect this fact?
>Michael Kay


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS