Re: F2F5 Agenda

Dear all,

According with Dave comments I updated the proposed diagram.
First of all now sorts are referenced. Second, I separate individuals 
from data literals, and to refer to the sorts by using URIs. I hope that 
this design can be useful.
I can use MagicDraw if there is some interest for the XMI.


And then the Sorts diagram is:



According with this new design the EBNF is:

CONDITION ::= 'And' '(' {CONDITION} ')' |

              'Or' '(' {CONDITION} ')'  |

              'Exists' '(' 'declare('Var {Var}')' CONDITION ')' |

              POSITIVE

POSITIVE::= 'Equal' '(' TERM TERM ')' | 'Uniterm' '(' 'functor' '(' Individual ')' 'arguments' '(' {TERM} ')' ')'

TERM ::= Var | CONST | 'Uniterm' '(' 'functor' '(' Individual ')' 'arguments' '(' {TERM} ')' ')'

Var ::= 'Var' '(' name ['type' '(' sortRef ')'] ')'

CONST ::= 'Individual' '(' id ['type' '(' sortRef')'] ')' | 'DataLiteral' '(' lexicalForm ['type' '(' sortRef')'] ')'

SORT ::= PSORT | 'ASort' '(' SORT {SORT} ')' | BSort

PSORT    ::= xs:integer | xs:decimal | xs:time | xs:dateTime | xs:string

name::= xs:NCName

id ::= xs:anyURI

sortRef ::= xs:anyURI

lexicalForm  ::= xs:string



Regards,
Adrian

Dave Reynolds wrote:
>
> Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> I like some of the better names but I don't quite see how this 
>> version of the sort sub-diagram solves the issues. Though that might 
>> just be the lateness of the hour :-)
>>
>> First, Constants include things like numbers and dates, so they can't 
>> uniformly have an xs:anyURI id. You could split Constants into 
>> Symbols and Literals (or TypedValues or something) - Symbols could 
>> have an id (xs:anyURI) whereas TypedValues would have a lexicalForm 
>> (an xs:string).
>>
>> Second, just considering Symbols I don't see how this resolves the 
>> divergence between the metamodel reading and the abstract syntax 
>> reading. Your BNF suggests that you intend this to have an abstract 
>> syntax reading but I don't think we are saying that a Symbol used in 
>> a predicate position (for example) would have an ASort specification 
>> inline in the syntax at the point of use (at least I hope not).
>
> Sigh, of course that should have been either function/Asort or 
> predicate/Bsort ... definitely too late ...
>
> Dave