- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:30:35 -0500
- To: "Gerd Wagner" <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Cc: "'Michael Kifer'" <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>, 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.
I spent some time asking around for viable "standard" options here
before proposing a non-standard one. I'm not expert in UML, MOF, and
XMI, but from what I could figure out, there didn't seem to be a simple
way, using that technology, for us to collaboratively design an abstract
syntax. E-mailing UML diagrams doesn't seem practical.
> 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.
Is it easy to show us what the Implies/CONDIT grammar/model would look
using this approach?
-- Sandro
Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 19:31:00 UTC