RE: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

> 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