Simple extensional sentences take the form
Node:Path = Ext
where Node is a node, Path is a simple path, and Ext is
a simple value. Extensional sentences derivable from the examples given
in Section 2 include:
Do:<mor past participle> = done.
Mow:<mor past tense sing one> = mow ed.
Love:<mor present tense sing three> = love s.
Simple definitional sentences take the form
Node:Path == Def.
where Node and Path are as above and Def is an arbitrary
descriptor sequence. Definitional sentences already seen in
Section 2 include:
Do:<mor past> == did.
VERB:<mor form> == "<mor "<syn form>">".
EN_VERB:<mor past participle> == "<mor root>" en.
Each of these sentences corresponds directly to a DATR statement.
However we extend the notion of a sentence to include an abbreviatory
convention for sets of statements relating to a single node. The
following single sentence:
Node:
Path1 == Def1
Path2 == Def2
...
PathN == DefN.
abbreviates (and is entirely equivalent to):
Node:Path1 == Def1.
Node:Path2 == Def2.
...
Node:PathN == DefN.
Extensional statements may be similarly abbreviated, and the examples used
throughout this document make extensive use of this convention.
Such compound sentences correspond to a number of individual (and entirely
independent) DATR statements.
In this connection, it is worth reiterating that DATR descriptions
correspond to sets of statements: the order of sentences,
or of definitions within a compound sentence is immaterial to the
relationships described.
Finally, there is a pragmatic distinction between definitional and extensional sentences akin to that drawn between the language used to define a database and that used to query it. DATR interpreters conventionally treat all extensional sentences as ``goal'' statements, and evaluate them as soon as they are encountered. Thus, it is not usually possible, in practice, to combine definitional and extensional sentences within a theory. It is not obvious that one would ever wish to do this anyway, but the possibility is explicitly left open in the original definitions of E&G 1989a. Such a statement would respect global inheritance but not local inheritance and could conceivably be useful to achieve some exotic effect.
