W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: Review of Reference (syntax reference? no)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 03 Jan 2003 01:06:33 -0600
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: WebOnt <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1041577592.19700.213.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 16:27, Jeff Heflin wrote:
[...]
> Major comments:
> ------------------
[...]
> - In general the document does not serve its purpose as a syntax
> reference very well. Ideally, I'd like to see the grammar for each
> language construct. The RDF Schema is only helpful to those who already
> know RDF pretty well. I'd like our potential readers to be able to use
> this as a definitive document about what's valid syntax in the language
> and what is not.

I don't think it's a syntax reference. The syntax is
RDF/XML syntax. It's a vocabulary reference.

It should read like the standard C library reference,
not like the C language reference.

(In fact, I think calling OWL a language is misleading,
but I guess it's a little late to re-open that one.)

My major comment about the reference document is just
to the contrary: it shouldn't be written in
terms of XML elements and attributes at all, but
rather in terms of properties, classes, and the
like, ala RDFS.

The guide serves as our repository of
copy-and-paste-able examples.

There are lots of specs for XML formats
that just re-iterate a grammar in prose, but
never actually tell you the meaning of the
comination of syntactic elements. Let's
please don't go there.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 02:06:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT