Re: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

• From: <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
• Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:18:14 -0500 (EST)
• To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu, cawelty@frontiernet.net
• Cc: public-rif-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <200611161518.KAA04885@clue.mel.nist.gov>

>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

Yes, but let's apply those same rules to the asn06 proposal itself.  
The proposal merely alluded to some vague goals and then included a 
completely homebrew, non-standard solution.  Frankly, it is difficult to 
take such a proposal seriously.  Please provide a description of the
goals motivating the use of an abstract syntax for RIF, and the 
characteristics that would be important for an abstract syntax
notation in the RIF context.  Then the working group can evaluate
whether it is a good idea to define an abstract syntax, and 
what notation would be most appropriate for it.

-Evan

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2006 15:42:15 UTC