- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:12:13 -0400 (EDT)
- To: seanb@cs.man.ac.uk
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Sean raises a number of points here that are somethat more than editorial changes, but are not big changes. I have made changes to the abstract syntax document to address his concerns. The changes amount to: 1/ Using keyword(...) uniformly throughout the document. 2/ A few other minor changes. Parsing the revised OWL Abstract Syntax does require a bit of lookahead, but it does fit within yacc, except for restrictions where it is difficult to distinguish between restrictions on datatype and individual properties. (I actually have a yacc grammar for OWL now that finesses this.) peter From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk> Subject: OWL Abstract Syntax Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:08:38 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time) > Some brief comments on the latest version of the OWL Abstract Syntax > document (prompted by trying to use the abstract syntax in a tutorial > style document). > > o The mixed use of "feature=X" and "feature(X)" forms is ugly and > potentially confusing -- e.g. cardinalities use "()" and someValuesFrom > uses "=". Why not stick to one or the other? > > o There are places where parsing could be unnecessarily tricky, i.e., > something like "union ( person restriction (...))" where restriction > could actually be a class called restriction or the start of some restriction > syntax. > > Tidying up the syntax a little and adopting some consistent conventions > (e.g. keywords always followed by parentheses) should alleviate both these > problems I think. > > Cheers, > > Sean > > -- > Sean Bechhofer > seanb@cs.man.ac.uk > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 12:13:50 UTC