W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [TED] Abstract Syntax and Abstract-to-Concrete Mappings

From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:14:32 -0400
To: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <27105.1189401272@cs.sunysb.edu>


Sandro, you are looking in a wrong place. Look at the abstract syntax.
Instead, you are looking at a translation algorithm!

> kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer) writes:
> > 
> > "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?
> 
> If you find this:
> 
>   class2token('Equal','=')
>   abs2con4g('Equal'
>             '('
>                'side' '->' TERM1
>                'side' '->' TERM2
>              ')',
>           TokenTable)
>    =
>     TERM1 lookup('Equal',TokenTable) TERM2
> 
> more "visually convenient" than this:
> 
>   Equal ::= left::Term '=' right::Term
> 
> then I have no idea where to begin this discussion.   
> 
> > (Your syntax was at times at odds with the formal syntax, and that has been
> > fixed. 
> 
> I think I was trying to match the BNF not the formal syntax, but that
> was just for illustration purposes anyway.
> 
> > Otherwise, the two seem basically isomorphic to me.)
> 
> They appear equalent in some essential ways -- a bit like C++ and
> assembly are equivalent, I guess.  I have a pretty strong preference for
> one style over the other.
> 
>     -- Sandro
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 05:14:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:42 GMT