Re: Datatypes with no (cool) URI

(apologies if this is a re-post, I don't think it made it through y'day)


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Dave Reynolds <> 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:
>> -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:

This use case aside, there ought to be more information to guide
people towards how to do this correctly.

See also:



Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 08:30:59 UTC