Michael Kifer wrote: >>> I find the formulation >>> >>> Implies >>> head: LitForm >>> body: Condit >>> >>> makes it much more clear that "head" and "body" name the roles that the >>> parts of the implication statement play. >>> >> Ah; that's a good illustration. >> >> Like Michael (13 Nov 2006 20:21:21 +0100) I'm happy to use turtle, >> I'm beginning to see your point. >> > > I am not against a frame notation like the above. But in my view this has > to do with an ontology of rule parts rather than with the syntax. > When we do XML syntax I don't think it is useful to get out of our way to > emphasize that the head and the body can come in any order. In fact, this > is useless and harmful, IMO. > Michael, To paraphrase your own message of 11/11, Can you please formulate what exactly is the problem using more concrete terms? What is the problem with asn06 syntax that Sandro has used and how does BNF resolve that? I do not understand your objection nor your use of the terms "useless" and "harmful" here. Thanks, Chris -- Dr. Christopher A. Welty IBM Watson Research Center +1.914.784.7055 19 Skyline Dr. cawelty@frontiernet.net Hawthorne, NY 10532 http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/weltyReceived on Monday, 13 November 2006 23:08:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:34 GMT