• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Occurrence Question
• From: "Fraser Goffin" <goffinf@h...>
• Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 12:48:43 +0100
• Bcc:
• In-reply-to: <BAY0-MC4-F13AIOx3aY0054c39a@b...>

Well ok for that use case probably not, perhaps my use of the word 'always' 
was a bit rash.

But in another case where I *do* have an 'Amanda Sproggins' on the payrol 
and if I explicitly wanted to model the absence of 'Amanda Sproggins' in 
some important context then I would *typically* :-) prefer to represent the 
'Amanda' instance concretely rather than assume absence has meaning (given 
that that piece of data not turning up could be for any number of reasons).

Fraser.

>From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
>To: "'Fraser Goffin'" <goffinf@h...>,<xml-dev@l...>
>Subject: RE:  Occurrence Question
>Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:12:58 +0100
>
> > FWIW, from a style perspective I always prefer to create an
> > *explicit*
> > specification of a semantic rather than making assumptions about the
> > presence/absence of an information item !
>
>So if your company doesn't employ anyone called Amanda Sproggins, you would
>have an element to reflect this fact?
>
>Michael Kay
>http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>

• Prev by Date: RE: Occurrence Question
• Next by Date: RE: Occurrence Question
• Previous by thread: RE: Occurrence Question
• Next by thread: RE: Bad programmers use recursion, xslt (Offtopic...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread