Re: The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document

Hi Peter

Just to understand, could you please extend a little and say why ?
What would be the implications of such a visible disclaimer ?

Thanks

Christine

2009/3/5 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>:
> 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
>>
>
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 19:25:36 UTC