Re: BLD: externally defined frames

Michael Kifer wrote:
> 
> Yes, clarifying: I have only a foggy idea of what you are talking about :-)
> 
> I understand neither what is problematic in the above nor the difference
> between what you call an externally defined frame or method.

Sorry for having been unclear. I can at least clarify that part: the 
term "problematic" was to explain why Chris and myself thought it was 
safer to mark the external frame "at risk".

But the question was really to try to clarify what are external frames.

For the remainder of your reply: I have to think about it and try to 
connect it with my request for clarification. I will come back to you 
later...

Cheers,

Christian

> FYI, a data model is, by definition, a set of types of relationships
> that are required to be used in specifying data instances.
> Wikipedia goes even further and adds to it
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_model).
> 
> So, a terminology mismatch here.
> 
> I cannot figure out what you mean by "deal with references to externally
> defined data models on a construct by construct basis".
> 
> What you aparently do not understand is that whether we use a restricted subset
> of forms or not, it is you, the modeller, who decides what to use and how, not
> the external source. If you want to model me and other people as tuples in a
> relation
> 
> p(m,k,123456789)
> 
> all the power to you.  If I want to model you as an object in my application,
> RIF allows me to:
> 
> csma[id->987654321, last->dsm, first ->c] 
> 
> But if I do not want to, I can model you (and other people) as above:
> 
> p(c,dsm,987654321)

Received on Monday, 28 July 2008 10:00:15 UTC