Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Quasi-enumerable value for gender #541
While leaving gender as plain text (instead of just "male" or "female") is politically correct, it makes certain assertions difficult.
Example: if X is Y's sibling and X is female, then X is Y's sister.
However, the gender "female" could be written inconsistently as "F", "Female", "FEM", or in some other way.
I suggest gender be a "quasi-enumerable" value: "F" for female, "M" for male, but plain text allowed for other genders.
So, you couldn't use "female" or "fem" for female (since it already has an assigned enumeration), but you could still have non-male/female genders.
@akuckartz Yes, and I'm arguing that's a bad thing, since it's
@danbri Agreed. I think we need a "enumerated type with other values"
added a commit
Jun 26, 2015
Looking back for old issues to address, ... what happened here? @vholland your PR has gone away, though the draft is visible. It proposed Male and Female enumerations. I was thinking a soft enumeration would just be to list the expected textual values i.e. 'female' as a string, 'male' as a string. This gets us back into the territory we're discussing around dayOfWeek, 'Monday'/'monday' vs http://schema.org/Monday. /cc @betehess
I see that some countries already have different approaches/terminology. Just to name a few from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender: Indeterminate, X, Third Sex, Third Gender.
So this does look like