Re: TMQL: Direct (super|sub)types?
Benjamin Bock <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Lars Marius Garshol <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Rani Pinchuk >> >> I think that what Lars meant is that a special construct for the "direct" case is useful. That's all. >> >> He does not mean that he would like to have this as the default behavior. > > Correct. Actually, I meant the opposite: it should not be default, it should just be possible to do this in the special cases where it is useful. It's OK if it's less convenient than the default (indirect) case. > >> We have here two needs: >> 1. Getting the language to work according to the semantics as defined in TMDM (where supertype subtype is transitive relationship). That is Tosca is instance of Opera, but also of Musical Work and of Work. Opera is subtype of Musical Work but also of Work. >> 2. For some use cases, we need to know the direct type or supertype. > > Exactly. Very clearly explained. +1 > > --Lars M. > http://www.garshol.priv.no/tmphoto/ > http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/ > _______________________________________________ > topicmapmail mailing list > topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected] > http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail >