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

Am 05.03.2011 um 10:22 schrieb Robert Barta:

>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Lars Heuer <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>>>> If TMQL does not introduce a terminology for the distinction, then
>>>> something doubtful will arise because there *is* different ways how
>>>> to tackle this issue. Whatever choice you make on the defaults you
>>>> will have to support it with additional axis. Correct?
> 
> Again: No. :-)
> 
> RDF Query processors use external flags (controls, pragmas, ...)  to
> allow the developer to specify "the amount of inferencing" to be
> used. I personally found this to be very workable.

I find this to be contradictory with what you wrote earlier (quote below). The meaning of a query should not be dependent on external factors (globals), because it causes sleepless nights. Two locations to inspect is one too many. It gives too much power to a simple setting. It again shifts burden onto 'knowing' rather than 'understanding'. I dislike this approach (and system built on this approach), since i am never sure that all external factors have been taken into account or that new ones might be introduced. After all you can always rely on a systems engineer to have a 'good' idea. :)

Robert

Am 05.03.2011 um 09:53 schrieb Robert Barta:

>> The "direct" is due to the fact that the transitive axes should (IMHO)
>> be the default.
> 
> I strongly would agree with that. The *canonical* use case is:
> 
>  One has an TM-app which is using a background ontology. It works.
>  Customer refines the ontology and introduces intermediate types on a
>  Fri night.
> 
> - subclass transitivity: no change, you sleep through the weekend
> - no transitivity: shit hits the fan, wife angry, programmer pissed