Re: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

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 UTC