[tmql-wg] Result set requirements
Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:26:22 +0100
> OK, but isn't it ALWAYS the case that - if you would like to convert
> from one kind of storage into another kind of storage - there MUST be
> something which defines this connection?
Sure, I just suggest not to build that "something" into the TMQL.
Because when it is not in the TMQL, it gives the user of TMQL the
opportunity to separate the queries (what data is retrieved) from the
definition of how that data is delivered.
You could say that we can add it to TMQL in a way that keep the WHAT and
the HOW separated, but usually in the different environments you will
find other techniques for the HOW, so I don't think it is good to
enforce another technique on the users.
> > What I am not sure about is to have mechanisms in the language that
> > define HOW the data is delivered. I think it is better to have few built
> > in formats - strings, Topic Maps slices, and topic and association
> > objects.
> What would be the difference between a 'TM slice' and a set of
> topics/association objects?
"TM slice" is what I call a sub topic map. A topic map that contains all
the topics and/or associations from the query AND all the other topics
and associations to complete it to a topic map that can be used as a
stand alone topic map.
Set of topics/association objects is exactly those objects with no
additions. Such a set will not always represent a stand alone topic map
(for example, if topics are given without the topics that are their
instanceOf parents, that topic map is missing).
> Hmm, what are 'different' XMLs?
My stupid way of saying XMLs with different DTDs (or schemes). This is
in line with what I write in the end the section:
- It is a suggestion of how to generate XML with different DTDs that I
would NOT like to include into TMQL because of the separation argument
> What I cannot see is that you try to separate this into different
That separation served me so well in the past that I co-authored the
Both explain why to separate and how.