Re: TMQL: Direct (super|sub)types?
"Andrew S. Townley" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 3 Mar 2011, at 07:36 a.m., Robert Cerny <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > Maybe not the same, but it does mean more complexity for implementors. Maybe that's fine, but it isn't without impact. ast