Can we match schema, for examle

When is the following form a definition, a select, a match on schema?
My Shema:(My Schema Pattern,ArbitrarySugraph)

From the machines points of view, this is all simple bits on one field, some for matching some for adding.  It can run the schema through match, through format, or select, from its point of view is boils down to is an accumulated or/and operation on some bits.   There has to be some grammar that tells the machine how to overload the schema operator.

As a definition of a schema, the form above tells me to look at the schema, do I match it?  No, then skip the whole block, very efficient, but very painful if that is not what you want.  Custom has to lay down the law.  Schema means this and never anything more, otherwise schema loses all its meaning. You know, stop the typeface explosion!

Consider attribute, a possible part of the grammar, maybe a $.  Anyway what does it mean.  Ask a softwar geek an he will write a term paper.  But from the point of view of every microprocessor, it really means on of two things, it is a descending path or another element i a set.  Seriously, think about it.  Attributes mean a lot to us, humans, by custom, I mean the definition as applied to computers.  The attribute 32 bit word is about the most important attribute int he computer world, second only to the byte attribute. So, whatever attributes custom declares to be common, the fundamental property is either the byte or the word, and that translates into text or integer.  Going up in priority, a URL is a much ore important attribute than the names field on some column.  If the name is about the average Joe, how does that compare to the average URL.  From the world of software, go with the URL, it is a much more valuable attribute for piles of bits.

In other words, operators in the grammar are not going far except that they are important native software attributes, operators that get the client around the  web. Take the e mail address.  Use to be a distinguished attribute with specified purpose.  Now is has become a string of bytes that provide a generalized key index  for the client.  In other words, it starts out like a better, but higher level idea.  But eventually is falls back on its major attribute, a string of unique bytes.  That latter attribute is far more important, and a greater money then the more specific e mail address.

So, I think, the software world is better to let the client adopt the single attribute, the text key value. Let the client use the world of ontology to a path to key words.  Then the meaning of the key words is in the length and dept of the traversal to get the key word.  Information is in the encoding of the key words according to user access, click thrus, keep iLog(i) or an N deep ontology pattern within an integer for each ontology encoding.  Meet Shannon  criteria and you will extract all the meaning that humans attribute.

Rare ideas have longer ontology paths.