# [tmql-wg] Result set requirements

Robert Barta rho@bigpond.net.au
Fri, 27 Feb 2004 09:30:46 +1000

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 09:29:19PM -0500, Dmitry wrote:
> > | I personally prefer explicit XQuery-like constructors.

> I just copied sample with "good formatting":
>

Dmitry,

That does not look like XQuery at all :-))

topic($JournalPaper,$NewTopic){              ## we construct new topic based on existing one and
## $newTopic binds to it retract publication-date($Self,_)   ## delete some assertions from \$newTopic

Cloning nodes and adding/retracting information looks very complext to
me. And, more generally, it facvours those transformations where there
is a lot of similarity between incoming and outgoing information

Not sure, whether this is good and bad.

--

I think I discussed this a while back with Lars on IRC, that

- Once we decide to generate something fancier than lists,

- we _HAVE TO_ commit ourselves to a notation for that.

For lists this is easy:

return (or for the SQL fans 'select')
# here the values go
A, B, C, ...

For XML it probably is...XML!

return/select
<sometag>....</sometag>

I do not think that DOM2 constructors will make us happy ;-)

For TM it is ....hmmmm?

Of course I used AsTMa= for AsTMa? All other approaches will have to
come up with some syntax as well.

\rho