# [tmql-wg] Proposed changes to existing requirements

Robert Barta rho@bigpond.net.au
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:50:22 +1000

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 10:51:55PM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Kal Ahmed
> |
> | Let me propose: "TMQL results sets will be topic maps. Aggregation
> | of TMQL results sets will be performed according to the topic map
> | merging rules of the SAM". How's that for fitting into the standard
> | ? ;-)
>
> That's clear, straight, and unambiguous, but unfortunately I'm very
> unhappy with it. I see that there are people who want TMQL result sets
> to be topic maps, but as I see it part of what I want to use TMQL for
> involves picking strings and numbers out of topic maps (for use in an
> application) or selecting individual topics for use in another context.
...
> *However*, I do see that using TMQL to do TM -> TM transformations
> certainly also has its uses. I don't think this is a black and white
> thing, however.
>
> Let me propose:
>
>   "It shall be possible to interpret TMQL result sets as topic maps."

This sounds good, but I wonder what the other alternatives are. Is it

"It shall also be possible to interpret TMQL results as a table?"

> I'm uneasy about putting in too much distributed querying stuff into
> TMQL since I feel that that really belongs in implementations.
> Holger's requirement just said that we should avoid screwing that up
> for implementors, which is good.

It is, but IMHO, it would really help to see some implementation ideas
for this feature. The more possible usage scenarios/application cases
are on the table the more a standard can integrate them smoothly.
Otherwise this is more a Rorschach test:

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/rorschach.htm

:-)

\rho