Re: TMQL: Direct (super|sub)types?

Hi Robert,

[...]
> instances of a topic type. I can hardly imagine a use case case for
> indirect but who knows.

Maybe TMRM and a possible mapping to TMDM ruined my way of thinking,
but if I'd ask for tmdm:subject I'd expect that I get everything which
is an (indirect) instance of tmdm:subject (occurrences, associations,
names, topics).

I don't know if tmdm:subject and the type hierarchy of the Barta-model
still exists, though.

> I think the TMQL standard is the right place to establish a clear
> terminology for this distinction since everybody tackles this issue
> a little bit different. Some call it "direct" or "deep" or whatever.

Okay, personally, I'd start with a minimal/pure model/syntax for TMQL
and enhance it later. If there is enough demand to introduce new axes,
it's possible to introduce them later.

I don't deny that you've found use cases, but I wonder if it belongs
to TMQL. And if we don't introduce it yet, the user can still solve
the problem by using associations. If we don't introduce the axes
we'll loose nothing. The queries would be slightly longer, though.

I'd think it easier to add something if we encounter a demand than to
remove something. So, I'd opt for minimalism/purity.

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>

<https://twitter.com/larsheuer/> Twitter
<http://www.topicmaps.de/mailinglist/> German Topic Maps mailing list
<http://tinytim.sourceforge.net/> Open Source Topic Maps engine
<http://mappa.semagia.com/> Mappa - Python Topic Maps engine