Re: We need a better term

James Clark wrote:

> I beg to differ.  I think the term forest is equally appropriate for
> ordered and unordered collections of trees, which is exactly what is
> needed for TREX since the thing we are naming is a pair of an unordered
> collection and an unordered collection.

Before TATA, Gecsec and Steinby was the only book on tree automata.  They 
used forests to mean sets of trees.  Prof. Wood is very knoledgeable about 
formal language theory, and he strongly believes forests are sets.

James Clark wrote:

> Forest have also been used for ordered collections of trees. For
> example,
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/query-algebra/
> 
> uses "forest" for an ordered collection of trees, and "unordered forest"
> for an unordered collection of trees.

I think that the XML Query WG made a mistake.  I e-mailed the editors.

James Clark wrote:

> I dislike "hedge" because I don't think it is closely enough related to
> "tree"; "orchard" is cute, but I think probably too cute.

"Hedge" was coined by Bruno Coucelle.

	[Cou89] Bruno Courcelle. On recognizable sets and tree automata. In 
	Maurice Nivat and Hassan Ait-Kaci, editors, Resolution of Equations in 
	Algebraic Structures. Academic Press, 1989. 


As you know, I used to use forests.  However, I followed Prof. Wood's advice 
and switched to hedges.

Cheers,

Makoto