- From: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:30:29 +0100
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, public-lod@w3.org
(apologies if this is a re-post, I don't think it made it through y'day) Hi On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote: > On 03/04/12 16:38, Sarven Capadisli wrote: >> >> On 12-04-03 02:33 PM, Phil Archer wrote: >>> >>> I'm hoping for a bit of advice and rather than talk in the usual generic >>> terms I'll use the actual example I'm working on. >>> >>> I want to define the best way to record a person's sex (this is related >>> to the W3C GLD WG's forthcoming spec on describing a Person [1]). To >>> encourage interoperability, we want people to use a controlled >>> vocabulary and there are several that cover this topic. ... >> >> Perhaps I'm looking at your problem the wrong way, but have you looked >> at the SDMX Concepts: >> >> http://purl.org/linked-data/sdmx/2009/code#sex >> >> -Sarven >> > > I was going to suggest that :) +1. A custom datatype doesn't seem correct in this case. Treating gender as a category/classification captures both the essence that there's more than one category & that people may differ in how they would assign classifications. I wrote a bit about Custom Datatypes here: http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/custom-datatype.html This use case aside, there ought to be more information to guide people towards how to do this correctly. See also: http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/ Cheers, L.
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 08:30:59 UTC