[sc34wg3] New syntax for (binary) associations
rho at devc.at
Sat Feb 2 05:15:51 EST 2008
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:52:19PM -0500, Dmitry wrote:
> More I think about it, more I see value to have these standard roles.
> From my perspective, it is more important to think about the nature
> of association type and to put association type in the "right" name
> space/domain and
> to have well defined interpretation of type-subtype for associations.
> ako dc:has_part
> I always can define user friendly names for roles for specific
> association types:
> tm: subject
> - "Blog" @ blogging:has_post
> - interoperability with RDF (almost without any annotations)
> Should I call this thing TM-Lite :)
You should call this thing "RDF heavy" :-)
But you're definitely correct that the "role-business" has to be
(better) addressed in CTM/TMQL/TMCL. In CTM this can be largely
covered with templates, but it takes the effort to define them and
then they create a "context":
[ modulo the syntax of the day ]
works-for ($e, $o) :-
is-employed (employee: $e, employer: $o)
# further down
rho works-for arcs .
I have experimented with the following, without using a template, but
to deal with proper role names:
rho as employee works-for arcs as employer . # as is new keyword
rho employee <- works-for -> employer arcs . # look'n'feel of TMQL
rho employee_works-for_employer are . # the _ separates role from type
Nothing really convincing.
More information about the sc34wg3