On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Michael Kifer wrote: > I think what you are trying to define is an ontology for rule parts > (or maybe a UML-like diagram). This is fine and useful, but I don't > think > it is a substitute for a concise BNF. Also, I don't agree that BNF's > parts > are unnamed. They look perfectly named to me (by nonterminals). Yes, I'm not sure I understand what BNF lacks either. Two data points: (1) The recent OWL 1.1 draft uses UML 17 October 2006 http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/owl_specification.html (2) I am developing a tool to convert the BNF notation from the XML specification to an RDF representation. bnf2turtle -- write a turtle version of an EBNF grammar 2006-02-10 http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/85 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/Received on Sunday, 12 November 2006 10:17:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:34 GMT