User:David Nemeskey/CG XML brainstorming

This page lists my (and others') ideas of how the CG XML format could or should look like.

Sets and lists

The words set and list are used interchangeably in CG. This is in contrast to how these term are used in CS, and partly to the commonsensical meanings of the words as well. The current planning process might be just the right time to fix this issue. I propose to say good-bye to list.

The (XML) tags below will be used throughout the grammar for specifying tags and sets in e.g. constraint conditions.

Item	CG syntax	XML syntax
Regular tag	nom	<tag>nom</tag>
Sequence tag	(n pl)	<seq><tag>n</tag><tag>pl</tag></seq>
Reading base-form	"dog"	<lemma>dog</lemma>
Word-form	"<dogs>"	<word>dogs</word>
Set	(...)	<set>...</set>
Special tags	>>> and <<<	<sbegin/> and <send/>

Observations:

1. seq and set are very similar, which might be a problem when skimming through a CG
2. I don't know if we even need set -- in the construction rules, you have to put sets to everywhere, and those will have separate XML tags anyway.
3. seq could be combined(-tag)?

Delimiters

Probably the easiest of the bunch:

<delimiters>(word forms, sets, etc.)</delimiters>

Sets

Set definitions and modifications. The section itself in enclosed in a <sets>...</sets> tag.

Item	CG syntax	XML syntax
Set definition	LIST set-name = ... ;	<define-set name="set-name">...</define-set> <dset name="set-name">...</dset>
Set modification	SET set-name = ... ;	<modify-set name="set-name">...</modify-set> <mset name="set-name">...</mset>

The define-set tag works exactly like set, the only exception is that the former is named and can only be used in the SETS sections. The ... in set modification can include the following set operations:

Operation	CG syntax	XML syntax
Union	A OR B	<union>???A???B???</union> <or>???A???B???<or>
Concatenation	A + B	<concat>???A???B???</concat>
Difference	A - B	<diff>???A???B???<diff>

Note: I imagine the above to be akin to lisp operators, e.g. (or A (concat B C) (diff D E)). This format has the benefit of explicitly encoding the precedence in the formula, so grammarians won't have to memorize it.