RE: How to proceed with TMQL?

| | But because we are all so objective toward our own children :-), I
| | would like to suggest that apart from presenting our own solutions
| | we will have another presentation (of at least the same duration)
| | where we try to choose one language that is not ourselves, or even
| | list the features we like in other languages that are not the
| | language we suggest.
| 
| Heh! I tried to suggest that to Steve. The suggestion did not fly. :)

I understood you to be proposing this as an *alternative* to each
author defending his own. As an *addition* I think it is a very
good idea. I propose something along the following lines:

Each author

1. Presents an overview of his language.

2. Presents a list of the reasons why *his* language
   is a better starting point for TMQL than the others.

3. Says which of the other proposals he likes best, and
   why. (Maybe ranks each of the others.)

4. Lists the features that he would like to incorporate
   into his own language from the other languages in order
   to make it more complete.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper <[email protected]>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)