[
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).
Fraser.
>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
>http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>
|
