[rdfweb-dev] Relationship Schema Updated

Ian Davis iand at internetalchemy.org
Sun Mar 14 20:29:39 UTC 2004


Hi Dan,

On Sunday, March 14, 2004, 6:42:30 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Actually I spoke too soon! Since we have foaf:gender with an
> rdfs:domain of foaf:Agent, we allow the possibility that some 
> but not all Agents might have a gender. We also say that foaf:Group is a
> subclassof foaf:Agent, ie. groups are agents (things that can do
> things). FOAF allows, but is currently agnostic about, the possibility
> that some members of the class foaf:Group might have a foaf:gender
> property.
I wonder if there is some value in making the range of foaf:gender be
rdfs:Resource so that we can talk explicitly about the gender value.
As it stands we can only make assertions about subjects of the
gender.

You could then, for example, provide rdfs:seeAlso for more information
on the gender, or provide alternative forms of address.


Ian

-- 
http://internetalchemy.org | http://purl.org/NET/iand 




More information about the foaf-dev mailing list