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

Am 05.03.2011 um 11:44 schrieb Robert Barta:

> On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 11:30:19AM +0100, Robert Cerny wrote:
> 
>> so schrieb Robert Barta:
>>> 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.
> 
>> 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 find this to be contradictory with what you wrote earlier
>> (....). The meaning of a query should not be dependent on external
>> factors (globals), ...
> 
> And it does not :-)
> 
> Pragmas have been _part_ of the language. For exactly the reasons you
> pointed out.

Ok. After reading the relevant sections in the 'old' TMQL proposal, i understand, that the pragma is only valid for one query and that there is no distinction between direct and transitive. If i would wildly guess, i would say, because you think, that it *is* the same axis, so why give it a different name, thus also the necessity to specify the direction. This is a very consequent and clear approach. Yet, when i wrote, down some queries a while ago this way, i was always unsure whether to use '<<' or '>>'. It was always a matter of trial and error. I had the same problem when reading queries. I wonder how this discrepancy comes about: on the abstract level, it makes so much sense, but on when applied, it is so difficult. But is my guess correct, that certain (if not all) 'old' TMQL path ex
 pressions can be understood no matter whether you start at the left or the right?

Robert