[rdfweb-dev] Some RDF stats

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Fri Aug 15 18:04:27 UTC 2003


On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:41:28AM -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
> * Martin L Poulter <M.L.Poulter at bristol.ac.uk> [2003-08-07 10:14+0100]
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Julian Bond wrote:
> > 
> > And foaf:gender!!!! It's a strangely abstract way of describing people
> > that doesn't have a mention of gender or sex (Okay, I realise that it
> > might be difficult to settle on a vocabulary because of many kinds of
> > borderline case, but it's not like a declaration is compulsory, nor that
> > we're going to mandate physical checks.)
> 
> Yes, we should do gender/sex. Question is which, and how to deal
> respectfully with corner cases. Probably calling people corner cases
> isn't a great start, oops. But yes, Something Should Be Done About
> This. Let's have a bit of discussion here then I'll add something and
> flag it as 'unstable' for a while to get further feedback.

Great, we definitely need this. Naturally, dating services (yes, I know
of at least one that's been built on Jabber) will want to include even
more "vital statistics" (all the acronyms you see in personals ads) but
at least gender is a start.

> The technical answer (Damian suggested this) is probably is to model the 
> value space as classes, state that 'Male' and 'Female' are mutually 
> disjoint, but not that they exhaustively span the possible values.
> 
> Problem is this doesn't look great in RDF syntax:
> <Person>
>  <foaf:name>Alice A</foaf:name>
>  <foaf:gender>female</foaf:gender>
> </Person>

+1

Sorry for the delayed reply, I was on vacation.

Peter




More information about the foaf-dev mailing list