[sc34wg3] CTM / TMCL Issue: Wildcards - Do we need them?

[Xuân Baldauf]

Robert Barta wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 06:24:23PM +0200, Lars Heuer wrote:
>   
>> Now, I took a look at the TMCL draft dtd. 2007-12-08 and I wonder if
>> we need the "?" and "?foo" notation at all; it seems that the []
>> notation is enough.
>>
>> A random example from TMCL:
>>
>>   def AssociationTypeConstraint()
>>       ?atc1 isa associationtype-constraint
>>       AddConstraintToSchema(?atc1)
>>   end
>>
>>
>> which can replaced by:
>>
>>    def AssociationTypeConstraint()
>>        AddConstraintToSchema([isa associationtype-constraint])
>>    end
>>     
>
> [] can replace a named wildcard _only_ if the structure of the
> information is restructured into a tree form.
>
> I am not sure whether it is _always_ possible to do that with every
> kind of expression. But I am pretty sure that - even if is - it is
> inconvenient for a user to perform this mental exercise.
>
> Given the many ... edges ... CTM has saving on the wildcards does not
> really make a difference. From an implementation viewpoint both are
> no-brainers.
>
> My succus: Keep it as-is,
I support that view.
> maybe explain one with the other.
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.isotopicmaps.org/pipermail/sc34wg3/attachments/20080527/860dfe2e/attachment.html