[sc34wg3] Re: FYI: Yet another TMRM Formalization (well, not really)

[Martin Bryan]

Robert

> Counterquestion: How can the natural numbers be implemented such that
> a computer can understand?

By humans adopting conventions that machines can interpret to determine the
relevant values that can be used in binary arithematic to represent the
number.

What I want are a set of machine processable identifiers for TM concepts
that humans can enter safely by hand.

> The \tau model is a formalism, nothing else. It is not meant to
> implemented as is, in the same way as relational databases do not
> implement tables with the relational algebra.

But they do have a computable form.

> What RDBMSes do is to incorporate 'knowledge about the relational
> algebra, at least to a certain extend. This is also the intention
> behind the path language, namely that engines can use it to perform
> optimization steps during processing. The model is nothing else as a
> basis to formulate the rules.

But until you take the next step the model will remain just that = a
"theoretical" model which explains all and does f.all.

>    ($m / is-author-of / author/bn @uc)

What if I, in my vast ignorance, misenter this as
($x/author/is-author-of/basename ^@unconstrained)

> ----^  take the map
>
> ---------------------^ find all instances of this type (this give all
association of this type)
>
> -----------------------------^ in these associations find the author
role(s)
>
> -------------------------------^ get the basenames
>
> -----------------------------------^ but only those in the unconstrained
scope

My point is that information in natural languages can be entered in
different orders to get the same result. SQL only offers a limited
functionality for doing this. By naming each field XML allows you to
identify when the wrong information has been entered in the wrong order. At
present your model seems to be suggesting I need to be sure that type a is
used in map x, that the third part of the path is always an association, the
fourth is a TM construct and the fifth is a qualification :-( But is this
correct, fixed, inviolate, adequate....?

Doubting TM (Thomas/Martin)