Re: LANG: Nested Class definitions and the RDF striped syntax

On Fri, 2002-03-22 at 04:07, Frank van Harmelen wrote:
[...]
> An important feature of the OWL Light segment is that it's > *only*< syntax is 
>   of slots grouped into frames,

Now I'm confused; I thought the proposal[1] was an abstract syntax.
We have a requirement for an XML serialization of our language[2];
the BNF in the proposal isn't XML. So surely there will
be some other syntax, no?

[1] http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/
  <- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Mar/0210.html

[2] well, actually, a design goal, not a requirement.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webont-req-20020307/#goal-xml

> so it doesn't suffer from the problem of 
> flattening grouped definitions into multiple top-level statements.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/