# [tmql-wg] Result set requirements

Robert Barta rho@bigpond.net.au
Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:54:30 +1000

On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:40:46PM -0500, Dmitry wrote:
> >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 decided to add "coping with small modification" just because I think
> it will be typical pattern.

It probably is, yes.

But someone could argue that you are introducing through the back door
a TM update language: You have a TM information item and you would like
to modify some aspects of it.

I think we need that at some stage, but this is certainly nothing I would

> But it is possible to use coping and pure constructors without
> modifications.

I would VERY MUCH prefer this in TMQL at this stage. Mostly because it
makes clear that the language remains explicitely "functional"
(copying and cloning and modifying has this "side effect" touch).

> >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:
>
> topicMap:
>
>  johnSmith:
>       bn="John Smith"
>       who[is-author-of]:
>            id=paper2004-02-26
>            bn="Some paper name"
>            oc::publicationDate="2003-09-03"

I think we should drive something like this forward.

\rho