Notes on "L-expression"

A correspondance with socialfiction.org/

I. I was wondering about what the difference between the words that describe the landscape and the words that define the action is:

i.e.: The use of "Move", "OBS", "PML" as functions as opposed to descriptions.

If we look at:
"(MOVE ("1 left"(OBS("big trees")))"
we can think of it as:

            Move
          /         \
    "1_left"     OBS
                        \
                         "big trees"

 
In lisp syntax, it will look like:
(Move '1_left  (OBS 'big_trees '()))


Similar to how this works:
          +
        /    \
     3       *
           /     \
         4        5


(+ 3 (* 4 5))

=> 23



And perhaps then we can link the different move with each other and form a linked "expression tree". 
          
            MOVE
          /         \
    "1_left"     OBS
                   /      \
              MOVE    "big trees"
              /        \
    "3_right"       OBS
                     /       \
              MOVE         "piss on pavement"
             /       \
    "2_left"        PML
                             \
                               "sheep skull"


So the capitalized words/tokens become distinguishable from the descriptors.
and the syntax will look like:

(Starting the evaluation from the bottom)
(MOVE "1 left" (OBS "big trees" (MOVE "3_right" (OBS "piss on pavement" (MOVE "2_left" (PML "sheep skull" null))))))

In other words, the whole walk can become an expression tree in itself, which can be conceived as a flow of actions and descriptions
working together rather than following one after the other.
It is still procedural if you think the way the expressions are evaluated but more lispish and computational friendly.
I don't think one can say this approach is better or worse but more lispish perhaps.   

II. The way the "piss on pavement" was described with words->corresponding shapes is very interesting, especially how this invites
the concept of personalised/dedicated parsers that run on different levels of precision for mapping the visual to the word than to the line.
For me that raises some questions for the use of the language, and mappability/computability itself.

The data(as expression) stored inside the "L-expression" can implement a higher order description that can not be represented with basic geometry
(i.e. pain or sheep skulls) or on the other hand in a special instance, depending on the ability of the native speaker, it can provide very local and detailed
description that can call for a visual expression. "L-expression" will probably implement a list of reserved words as functons but leave the syntax open
for the descriptions. While geometric functions LINE, BOX and MOVE, OBS have significant amount of difference in precision for expressing the similar
phenomena, the walk will become perhaps a walk in higher level and lower level description of landscape. And the language, perhaps will become itself
only for its singular native speaker.

III. The rendering of the pavement may hinder some questions, I might reserve some doubts about a one to one correspondence with the visual and
the verbal, not whether it will be successfull or not but whether we need to see what the walkers perceive during their moment of walking and than try to
restore a landscape that is stored/imagined in the words... This is a matter to use the language and its vocabulary in the social construction of the place.

(However, in visual terms, overlaying different attempts to describe the same place/geometry by different participants might show an interesting phenomenology.)