W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

RE: Peter's slides about the MOF metamodel

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>
Message-ID: <005e01c8f32b$76952bd0$05dc0681@MEL.NIST.GOV>

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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 July 2008 16:36:28 GMT