Re: defining the semantics of lists

On 6/10/2020 5:34 PM, Frans Knibbe wrote:
> I am afraid that for geographical data (that's my background) a solutio=
n=20
> with explicit length properties might not work. That's because the=20
> distance between two locations may not be known or can not=C2=A0unambig=
uously=20
> be determined. The earth's surface is not smooth and constantly=20
> changing, that complicates matters.

Heh, heh!  I chose not to get into whether or not the triangle is to be=20
in Euclidean space or not.  Talk about potential data explosion!  And=20
notice that these possibilities don't have anything to do with the=20
list-ness of the thing.

The style of modeling something is not a one-time thing that has only=20
one possible way, at least not for something complicated.  I like to=20
call these modeling patterns "idioms".  One can usually move details out=20
of the model and into the software that interprets it, if the software=20
understands the idiom.  But then you can't share those graphs except=20
with others whose software understands the idiom.

Personally, before any new list constructs get standardized, I would=20
like a lot more modeling (such as my example) to get done.  Once a lot=20
of people get solid on that - i.e., have wrestled with it in detail -=20
would it makes sense to me for shortcuts to get evolved to a standard.

TomP