W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: CURIE proposal ... (was: Re: [DTB] ACTIONs 428 and 292 completed)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:49:53 +0100
Message-Id: <10E09E15-C750-409C-9609-A21B9DE8F24F@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer), Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On 22 Apr 2008, at 02:36, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I'm such a flip-flopper; maybe I should run for President.
>
> While I liked Axel's proposal, I think I also get Michael's point,  
> that
> (to paraphrase) the Presentation Syntax is not a real rule  
> language.  If
> we want a real (usable) rule lanuage, we should carefully design one,
> not just add random patches to the PS.

[snip]

It's a fantasy, in my experience, to think that something called a  
"Presentation Syntax" is *not* going to get used as a concrete  
syntax. It will just be an underspecified one. (See the old OWL  
abstract syntax for one example.)

What's the objection to using XML directly? For spec purposes, relax- 
ng grammars are reasonably compact. For examples, well, I'd  
personally rather have the actual syntax I'm supposed to be exchanging.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 08:48:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:48 GMT