[topicmapmail] AsTMa! as TMCL

[Kal Ahmed]

Firstly, let me just say that there is a lot of interest in this proposal=
=2E

Some initial comments:

1) There is nothing in the document about the treatment of conflicting=20
constraints. Especially where a topic may have multiple types, it could b=
e=20
quite easy to end up with such conflicts. There should be some form of=20
resolution (perhaps precendence rules based on file order ?)

2) There are no provisions for quantitative constraints (e.g. an associat=
ion=20
of type 'has-natural-children' must contain no more than two 'parent'=20
role-players)

3) As a smaller niggle, why do regular expressions which contain a / char=
acter=20
require a different syntax to other regex's when Perl regex's allow / to =
be=20
escaped ?

As an aside, it is interesting that most constraint language proposals in=
volve=20
the creation of a new syntax for their expression. Having started down th=
e=20
road of developing a constraint language using XTM syntax (based on the=20
original work done by Steve Newcomb and Michel Biezunski on association=20
templates), I am aware of the verbosity of such a solution, but it would =
be=20
nice to see if/how a constraint language such as AsTMa! could be mapped i=
nto=20
topic map constructs (even if the original AsTMa! syntax is retained).

Cheers,

Kal

On Sunday 08 December 2002 09:07, Robert Barta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case you are interested where we (Bond) currently stand with our ide=
as
> about constraining TMs (aka TMCL), see our new tutorial and the last
> version of the language specification:
>
>    http://astma.it.bond.edu.au/constraining.xsp
>
> Constructive comments welcome!
>
> \rho
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail

--=20
Kal Ahmed, techquila.com
XML and Topic Map Consultancy

e: kal@techquila.com
p: +44 7968 529531
w: www.techquila.com