Re: [Semediawiki-user] Unify relations and attributes? (user poll)

[Reini U. <ru...@x-...>]

2007/3/16, Markus Kr=F6tzsch <ma...@ai...>:
> Our increasing impression is that the distinction between Relations and
> Attributes in SMW is no longer the best solution. It was useful when ":=
=3D"
> still behaved mostly different from "::", but it seems that the growing
> number of types of attributes might as well include a type "wikipage" tha=
t
> makes them act like relations. This could simplify wiki syntax as well as
> explaining SMW to new users.
>
> So, dear SMW users, what do you think?
>
> (1) Should we merge Relations with Attributes by providing a new datatype=
, and
> by treating untyped attributes as relations by default (instead of reject=
ing
> them as done now)? Why?/Why not?

No.
Untyped Attributes maybe similar to Relations in linking to a wikipage.
But there should be clear distinction from syntax to semantics.
:=3D is different to :: and should mean a different thing.

> (2) If only one remains, should we rather use the syntax "::" or ":=3D" f=
or
> annotations? The syntax ":=3D" suggests a way of writing inverse relation=
s in
> queries via "=3D:", but maybe this is not obvious enough to be a good ide=
a.
> Which syntax looks more user-friendly in general?

:: is a good syntax because : meant interwiki links, and a duplication
reminds of links.
:=3D is also a good semantic reminder analog to the pascal assignment.
An assignment (an attribute) is stronger and something completely
different than a "named" or typed link.

> (3) Should we call the remaining semantic elements "Relations"
> or "Attributes"?

yes, please.

> (4) How would the type "wikipage" that is used for emulating relations be
> called? "Article", "Page", "Wikipage", "Link", ...?