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

Am 02.03.2011 um 23:34 schrieb Lars Heuer:

> [...]
>> I'd think it easier to add something if we encounter a demand than to
>> remove something. So, I'd opt for minimalism/purity.
> 
> Take CTM's embedded topics [1]. I haven't seen topic maps which use
> embedded topics but we have them in the standard. It complicates CTM
> and now it's nearly impossible to introduce CURIEs [2] in CTM. It
> would have been much better if we wouldn't have introduced embedded
> topics but someone thought embedded topics are useful.
> 
> I guess CTM without embedded topics would have been much better and
> nobody would have missed them. Further, the introduction of embedded
> topics in CTM results into the conclusion that TMQL cannot use CURIEs
> since TMQL's syntax should be aligned to CTM. If CTM wouldn't have
> follow each evadable idea, we wouldn't have this problem

I agree that this is unfortunate and understand your concern much better now. But i fail to see how the introduction of one or more navigation axis can have the same effect.

Robert Cerny