- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:04:46 -0500 (EST)
- To: ewallace@cme.nist.gov
- Cc: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
If NF&R has grammar productions (and I'm not happy that it has), then there needs to be visible disclaimers that NF&R is non-normative. peter From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> Subject: The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:42:16 -0500 > > Bijan had expressed a view [1] that including the syntax productions in > the NF&R > was needless duplication (my paraphrasing) of material from other > documents. Christine > and I have discussed this offline and here is our position. > > ****************************************************** > > We think that a description of the syntax for each feature is needed > in the document for properly describing the features in order to > ground all the other discussion about the feature. Without this, the > document would not be complete. > > It makes the new features being discussed concrete which > really helps in understanding for all the related discussion such as: > - why do we have the feature > - and the theoretical and implementation perspective on it. > It would also be a pain for the reader to jump to the syntax document > at each feature discussed in NF&R. > > We also think that the functional syntax is the best syntax for this > purpose. First, this syntax is a good compromise of readability and > user-friendly syntax. Furthermore, it is the syntax used in the Syntax > document, so when the reader does go to that document for reference > and more details, it will be a smooth transition from what he or she > has already seen. > > Christine and Evan > > ****************************************************** > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0261.html >
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:04:44 UTC