saunders at astro.ex.ac.uk
Thu Nov 1 12:21:37 PDT 2007
I think parsing underscores and capital letters *is* trivial. I agree with
Ed that the readibility is much more important than keeping everything in
the set a-z.
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
> At the time, there where lots of voices saying that, while you are perfectly
> correct (and I'd prefer to have them as humanly readable as possible), the
> realities of computer-based parsing mean that a trivial token format costs
> less pain.
> How about an official show of hands?
> On 1 Nov 2007, at 5:32 pm, Ed Shaya wrote:
>> Well, I vote to put back the underscores and the capitalization where
>> appropriate. There is no need to go out of one's way and make all IDs
>> cryptic just to make a point about the concept of tokens. In ontology
>> these become the element names of instances and it is really handy to be
>> able to readily discern what kind of instance it is by looking, rather than
>> going to some lookup table. We need some prescience here, not to be
>> confused with pre_science.
>> Frederic V. Hessman wrote:
>>> On 31 Oct 2007, at 6:54 pm, Ed Shaya wrote:
>>>> What happened to the underscores between all of the compound words?
>>> A while back, we communally decided that the tokens should be as compact
>>> and simple as possible, i.e. no caps, no diacritical marking, no spaces,
>>> no underscores, not only to make them syntactically simple but to
>>> emphasize that they are only tokens. The text file still has the
>>> underscores, but now only for historical reasons (i.e. the original SV
>>> If everyone would rather see the underscores back again, no problem.
eSTAR Project (http://www.estar.org.uk)
University of Exeter
More information about the semantics