[tmql-wg] Result set requirements

Dmitry dmitryv@cogeco.ca
Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:40:46 -0500

On Feb 26, 2004, at 6:30 PM, Robert Barta wrote:

> 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":
>> http://homepage.mac.com/dmitryv/TopicMaps/TMPath/ 
>> TologBasedCostructorsSample.htm
> 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
> (read: ontology).
> Not sure, whether this is good and bad.

I decided to add "coping with small modification" just because I think  
it will be typical pattern.

But it is possible to use coping and pure constructors without  

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

I have less concerns about specific notation here. It can be LTM, AsTMa  
= - based.

I would probably prefer Python-like syntax :-) ,  something like this:


       bn="John Smith"
            bn="Some paper name"

But...I think important idea is that TMQL should have rich  
"constructor" part.