tolog for TMQL
Lars Heuer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi all, Two years ago I was against adapting tolog for TMQL I think that would be a good, pragmatic step now. We made nearly no progress since two years and now we have the next TMQL proposal which seems to ignore a bunch of previously made decisions. Rather than starting biyearly from zero we could align tolog to CTM's syntax and datatypes and have something we can work with. tolog's syntax and model seems to be consistent and we have experience with it. So, I'd think adapting tolog wouldn't waste as much time, money and energy than making the new proposal consistent. Adapting tolog would be a fast path forward. The lack of a query language is IMO one of the reasons for the negligible market share of Topic Maps. Having a bunch of serialization formats (and every 2 months we get another Topic Maps syntax) and TMAPI engines (and every 3 months a student thinks he should invent another TMAPI engine) does not help to convince commercial customers to consider Topic Maps as alternative to RDF. Best regards, Lars -- Semagia <http://www.semagia.com/>