[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

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


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

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list