- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:15:07 +0100
- To: "'Michael Kifer'" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> 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. Sandro is right with observing the insufficiency of EBNF as compared to MOF/UML, which is a bit more abstract (e.g. in its way not to imply any order of expression components) and more expressive, e.g., by clearly distinguishing between references and components and by allowing to attach contraints to syntax elements, while at the same time providing more readable syntax definitions. As OWL 1.1 is following R2ML (www.rewerse.net/i1) in using MOF/UML for the abstract syntax definition (although, probably since they are still a bit unexperienced, they are making a few mistakes such as using the white diamond instead of the black diamond for composition, or not suppressing the visbility symbols), RIF should also follow this move and make both a MOF language model and an EBNF grammar, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel with developing some other (non-standard) method. In the REWERSE project, several working groups (not just I1) have choosen MOF/UML as the abstract syntax definition language that can be complemented with EBNF. -Gerd
Received on Sunday, 12 November 2006 12:15:30 UTC