W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Oops (Re: Review comments on OWL Semantics)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:56:22 +0000
Message-ID: <3DF89586.5070904@hpl.hp.com>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org



One comment was wrong:

> 
> [[
> The abstract syntax is specified here by means of a version of Extended 
> BNF. Terminals are not quoted; non-terminals are enclosed in pointy 
> brackets ; and alternatives are either separated by vertical bars 
> (|) or are given in different productions. Elements that can occur at 
> most once are enclosed in square brackets (; elements that can 
> occur any number of times (including zero) are enclosed in braces (.
> ]]
> Qu why not use a more standard EBNF formalism?
> e.g.
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-ebnf.html
> 

You do use this formalism; I retract this question.

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 08:56:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT