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" <>
>To: "'Fraser Goffin'" <>,<>
>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/
>
>
