[kDev] kendraTools: information structure...

[Daniel Harris <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Neil and All,

Thanks. I took a look at the Wikipedia page...

At this stage of kendraTools I see no reason to define a strict 
language and probably never to do so. Each application will make it's 
own definitions; have their own input restrictions and search criteria. 
Have a look at the address application (?) that I've just coded for 
kendraTools:

http://www.kendra.org.uk/tools1/addresses.php

It's very simple (and matches my coding ability) but I hope it shows 
that we can data mine this mass of relationships any way we like.

Also, take a look at some other ideas for links that other applications 
may include at some point:

http://moof.org.uk/forum/index.cgi/DevelopmentPlanBook1Links

So, I suggest that we concentrate on the applications and make sure 
that the "information store" can hold as many different types of 
information, constructs and relationships as possible and yet still 
have a simple structure.

Does this make sense?

On the is/was are/were constructs: those are to do with time and 
perhaps it's better to have an additional relationship to these object 
stating when this relationship took place...

Cheers Daniel

On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 03:12  pm, Neil Harris wrote:
> Did you see my proposal for "relational tiny english" which is 
> restricted to sentences of a few forms such as
>
> [[A]] <is|are|was|were> the <relationship> of [[B]].
>
> and
>
> [[A]] <participle>s [[B]].
>
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalingo