[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
[[
As Uche aptly pointed out, people with a programming background
typically have a notion of types is derived from how they are treated in
programming languages and other aspects of Computer Science, not from
freshman philosophy classes.
I am interested in XQuery types from a dynamic vs. statically typed
perspective and not whether from a philosophical point of view as long
as things can be grouped together they can be considered to have a
certain "type".
]]
Sure. What I am saying is that this "freshman philosophy course" way of
looking at classes _actually has_ real world utility (and is implemented in
real world production software btw).
For example, I would like to state:
widgitCo:purchaseOrder --daml:sameClassAs--> my:purchaseOrder .
i.e. these two purchase orders are the same.
Now they might have different namespaces, different element names etc, but
if the computer could understand that they are the same (much as a human
clerk could easily see), this would be a really powerful "use case" for
semantic interoperability. Done correctly this sort of thing is not some
pipe dream rather within our reach.
That point is far away from XUpdate, but the type of thing (sic) that I'd
like to see the community work toward.
Jonathan
|
