[rdfweb-dev] Relationship Schema Updated

Jeremy Gray jeremy at jeremygray.ca
Fri Mar 19 05:01:13 UTC 2004

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org
[mailto:rdfweb-dev-bounces at vapours.rdfweb.org] On Behalf Of Michael Bauser
> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 8:31 PM
> To: rdfweb-dev at vapours.rdfweb.org
> Subject: Re: [rdfweb-dev] Relationship Schema Updated


> > After all, it's only _a_ vocabulary for describing relationships. I 
> > think you're mistaking it for _the_ vocabulary which doesn't and 
> > cannot exist.
> No, I'm mistaking it for the *first* vocabulary, which is going to set
> a bad example for the ones that follow, by refusing to make its biases
> explicit (and mucking up HTML). If it's really that important to you
> that it only describe English-style families, the specification should
> say "this vocabulary is only suitable for bilateral kindreds". That
> would be start towards sanity.

I've been watching from outside this thread for a while now, in part because
I'm busy, but also because I'm certainly not an expert on the issues
involved. That said, I think that it is safe to say that if at this point in
the (devolution of the) discussion certain community members are taking such
issue with what has been offered up freely as the result of the effort of
other community members, its high time those taking issue round up those
they feel are experts on the subject and proceed to generate a schema they
feel more adequately supports the needs they envision. Build it and they
will come.

Jeremy Gray

More information about the foaf-dev mailing list