- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:07:25 -0400
- To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
"Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> wrote: > > "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> writes: > > > > Based on the recent discussions, I updated the Abstract Syntax by also > > just using EBNF and introduced Abstract-to-Concrete Mappings for: > > > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Positive_Conditions > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules > > http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Slotted_Conditions > > > > Thus, unresolved dependencies on a future metalanguage for defining > > the RIF Syntax were removed, especially in the Slotted Conditions. > > This can now contribute to speeding up our editorial BLD WD2 work. > > What's the advantage of this formalism over SBNF? It seems much more > complicated to me. > > - s As far as I can see, this is a slight elaboration (and, perhaps, a visually more convenient form) of your own proposal of a couple of weeks ago. Can you explain where do you see the differences? (Your syntax was at times at odds with the formal syntax, and that has been fixed. Otherwise, the two seem basically isomorphic to me.) --michael
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 04:07:43 UTC