- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 14:56:46 -0500 (EST)
- To: cgolbrei@gmail.com
- Cc: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To prevent readers from treating NF&R as normative if it is not completely in sync with the normative documents. peter From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com> Subject: Re: The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:25:01 +0100 > 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 19:57:16 UTC