[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: FromNess, ToNess

I apologise for taking so long to jump into this thread, but
I've been too out of it.

First the part I mostly agree with,  it will be nice to have
N-ended links, but most of the examples you have given are better
handled with end-sets containing the stuff you want to lump
together.  If A needs to be connected to B&C, as in
A has a specified relationship to both B&C, the most
parsomonious way to express this is to have one end contain A
another contain B&C and the third contain the type.  This
has always been the way FROM, TOO,THREE sets were intended to work.
I expect that N-ary links should wait till 2.0, till we have some
experience with the limitations of conventional 3-end-set links
also till we grapple with graphic representations.

As to nomenclature, I still don't understand how TOO sets got
corrupted into To set.  All the Xanadu documentation that I wrote,
and all the code clearly had TOO set.  The link is FROM
here, and there TOO, and also THREE, very simple to explain
and the terminology expresses the double purpose of the Two
end.  The From/To confusion is related to a set of conventional
links that impose a directional interpretation on the 3-tuple
of the link.  This set contains ALL of the 4 conventional
literary link types (see LM.)