On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:59, Thomas Beale wrote: > I just had a look - it's cute! However, it only does the dADL part of > ADL, not the cADL part - there is no constraint semantics that I saw
Think outside of the square. What is a constraint? I can exactly describe all our object-relational database structures including all constraints as well relationships with YAML. I can furthermore serialize any type of Python (Perl, Ruby ...) object with YAML. Now, if I can express archetypes as Python object (which I can of course) and I can accurately serialize that object with YAML, such an (empty) object would be the archetype, wouldn't it? YAML was not designed as a markup language, although to me it still is one. It was designed to serialize objects from any high level language, and for *messaging*. You can use YAML just as a replacement for XML - but that would be using only a fraction of it's potential. Shall I map you an example archetype in YAML? It would be easy I suppose. The power of data types like nested maps (dictionaries, hashtables) and ordered lists in combination with anchors (hyperlinks, relationships) allows you to express any type of constraint you can come up with. At first, you might think this is not so, it is overly simplifying. But then try to find a concrete example you cannot express in it, .... Horst
