Re: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

> > rif:Quantif sl:subClassOf rif:Condit .
> > rif:? sl:domain rif:Quantif ;
> >        sl:range rif:Var ;
> >        sl:minCardinality 1 .
> > ...
> 
> Looking at such a syntax and comparing it to BNF, my reaction is:
> why the hell do we need this trouble?

I see Michael Sintek's point to be that there is abstract syntax for
abstract syntax languages.  He's showing what triples could be behind
asn06, EBNF-with-role-names, etc.  It's an interesting point, of course.

Meanwhile, I'm proposing asn06 -- with a fairly-reasable concrete syntax
-- not this turtle serialization of the data serialized by asn06.

    -- Sandro