[tmql-wg] Result set requirements

[Dmitry]

On Feb 26, 2004, at 6:30 PM, Robert Barta wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 09:29:19PM -0500, Dmitry wrote:
>>> | I personally prefer explicit XQuery-like constructors.
>
>> I just copied sample with "good formatting":
>>
>> http://homepage.mac.com/dmitryv/TopicMaps/TMPath/ 
>> TologBasedCostructorsSample.htm
>
> Dmitry,
>
> That does not look like XQuery at all :-))
>
>    topic($JournalPaper,$NewTopic){              ## we construct new  
> topic based on existing one and
>                                                 ## $newTopic binds to  
> it
>             retract publication-date($Self,_)   ## delete some  
> assertions from $newTopic
>
> 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
> (read: ontology).
>
> 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.

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


> I think I discussed this a while back with Lars on IRC, that
>
>   - Once we decide to generate something fancier than lists,
>
>   - we _HAVE TO_ commit ourselves to a notation for that.
>
> [...]

> 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"
....


But...I think important idea is that TMQL should have rich  
"constructor" part.


Dmitry