jasper data design todos
- representations may be related by a chain of transformations, not just single transformations; the transformations form a category
- transformations between representations may not be injective, in which case some representations have more information than others. Should be require that there is always at least one representation (perhaps the 'meta' representation) that has all the information, e.g. from which there is an injective map to any other representation?
- transformations between representations may not be surjective, in which case operations will be available on the transformed representation that don't correspond to any operation in the original representation. If such operations are applied, should we (a) throw an exception, (b) simply have a non-injective mapping back to the original representation, and allow the transformed representation to hold onto the extra information (in which case we have to specify what happens if then the data is altered again using the original representation; e.g. does this cause the extra information in the other representation to be lost, as if the last representation to be used is always the 'real' form of the object, which is converted after the fact? what if an object is passed to a subroutine that only takes a superclass of the object; do we lose all of the content in the extra fields in the object? it seems that the answer should be no, but then how long do we hold the extra info? what if the object is copied within the superclass-using subroutine, instead of mutated?) (c) immediately take a round-trip to the smaller representation and then back to the current one, immediately erasing the extra info
---
see also JasperView?
---
" Self provides structural re ection via mirrors [25]. It can actually be argued that mirrors are a rediscovery of up and down from 2-Lisp, but put in an object- oriented setting. However, mirrors provide new and interesting motivations for a strict separation into internal and external representations. Especially, mirrors allow for multiple di erent internal representations of the same external object. For example, this can be interesting in distributed systems, where one internal representation may yield details of the remote reference to a remote object, while another one may yield details about the remote object itself. AmbientTalk?/2 is based on mirrors as well, but extends them with mirages that provide a form of (object-oriented) procedural re ection [26]."
huh i wonder if these are like my 'perspectives' or 'views'?
---
to generalize (hyper)nodes further (?!):
n-ary Chu-ish spaces
(note that ordinary Chu spaces can already represent n-ary relations, see http://chu.stanford.edu/ ; i say Chu-ish b/c i'm not really thinking of Chu spaces here, just an n-ary matrix that is like the characteristic matrix of a relation, except with an arbitrary alphabet)
--
lattice ops (lub and glb)
--
" onal Programming Language A relational programming language (RPL) is a DeclarativeLanguage?
![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)