[sc34wg3] New syntax for (binary) associations

[Robert Barta]

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:52:19PM -0500, Dmitry wrote:
> More I think about it, more I see value to have these standard roles.
> From my perspective, it is  more important to think about the nature  
> of association type and to put association type in the "right" name  
> space/domain and
> to have  well defined interpretation of type-subtype for associations.
> 
> blogging:has_post
>      ako  dc:has_part
> 
> I always  can define user friendly names for roles for  specific  
> association types:
> 
> tm: subject
>      - "Blog" @ blogging:has_post

> - interoperability with RDF (almost without any annotations)
> 
> Should I call this thing TM-Lite :)

You should call this thing "RDF heavy" :-)

But you're definitely correct that the "role-business" has to be
(better) addressed in CTM/TMQL/TMCL. In CTM this can be largely
covered with templates, but it takes the effort to define them and
then they create a "context":

[ modulo the syntax of the day ]

   works-for ($e, $o) :-
     is-employed (employee: $e, employer: $o)
   .

   # further down
   rho works-for arcs .

I have experimented with the following, without using a template, but
to deal with proper role names:

   rho as employee works-for arcs as employer . # as is new keyword

   rho employee <- works-for -> employer arcs . # look'n'feel of TMQL

   rho employee_works-for_employer are .      # the _ separates role from type

Nothing really convincing.

\rho