Re: Path lengths and TMQL

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:02:20PM +0100, Andrew S. Townley wrote:

> I've been doing some reading on path languages, graph queries,
> etc. over the last few days and I was wondering why the notion of
> the path length wasn't included in any of the drafts I've seen.  If
> you could qualify the depth of the search of the path expressions,
> it seems like our disagreement over how to reference "direct" vs
> "indirect" links of type X might disappear.

That would work, although most people would probably resort to either

   $p >> types(1)    # direct type

or

   $p >> types(*)    # any type

In terms of store mechanics, allowing

   $p >> types(23)

can be quite challenging to implement effectively once you deal with
serious data.

So this brings us a only a bit forward.

\rho