[sc34wg3] Explanation in TMCL?
robert at cerny-online.com
Wed Jan 27 08:08:45 EST 2010
On Jan 26, 2010, at 6:47 PM, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Robert Cerny
>> or whether something like this is necessary:
>> tmcl:explanation isa tmcl:occurrence-type;
>> has-occurrence(tmcl:explanation, 0, *).
> Yes, this (except perhaps "0, 1", since presumably one explanation
> is enough) looks better.
"0, *" because the explanation is a text in natural language and not
everybody speaks English, so it should be possible to attach an
explanation in English and one in French and so on.
> However, I think this is outside the scope of TMCL, so that it's
> better if you define your own occurrence type.
I disagree that creating a useful validation report is outside the
scope of constraint language. Overall it is just a minature change
(note that my suggestion does not require TMQL) and will overall make
TMCL more useable, because it will create better validation reports.
It is not more than tmcl:comment or tmcl:see-also. Just that it is
really useful :-)
> Note that something similar has already been proposed by me and
> rejected by the committee: http://projects.topicmapslab.de/issues/1447
Hmm. I am having troubles understanding the rejection reason. No real
notion of error? But what do we have constraints for then? Is there
maybe some minutes of the meeting which explains the rejection in
more depth? As a someone with a very strong practical orientation i
think the suggestion is a good, just that i do not see the necessity
to make it dependent on TMQL, since the error message can be
presented together with the statement that violates the constraint.
And this will already make a lot of sense. More sense than some
generic blabla, which you can always fall back to if there is no
custom error message for the constraint.
More information about the sc34wg3