- From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:35:36 -0400
- To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'public-owl-wg Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Peter Haase'" <haase@fzi.de>, "'Boris Motik'" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Bijan, > I don't see any part that's *not*. Where do you see it not being? I asked first. :) You said "some flavor of the current metbamodel does, in fact, usefully generalize over all the concrete syntaxes I've seen". What flavor is that? > We use the conceptual model *everywhere*. Not sure what a conceptual model is. I'm referring to a metamodel for the W3C abstract syntax that's in the syntax document. > Yes, if sufficiently important user groups rebel at what we do enough > we should change what we do or point them to where others are doing > what they want to do. Is that the case here? I would say yes, if you want to address users that look at the interchange format. It seems like tney would be a large proportion of the people looking at any textual syntax. Conrad
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2008 16:36:26 UTC