On 6 Aug 2008, at 11:23, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: [snip] > It is my impression that we are doing neither. My take is that we > have a model related to, but not of, the syntax, No. It's a model of the syntax. Models abstract. > as the order of elements in the expressions is not captured and in > the functional syntax order matters. The order of elements in the expressions is not part of what should be modeled. The part that is modeled is that e.g., a ClassAssertion has a class expression part and an individual part. They way those aspect of the model are *realized* in the functional syntax is by order of arguments, but, of course, it needn't be *that* order, nor need it have parenthesis, or lack a comma between the arguments, or *have* a comma between the arguments. These are given by a *grammar*. > So to get to 1 we would pull the model out and make mapping > explicit or to get to 2 we would add ordering to the model. I do not believe we need to do either of these things. I also believe we are in a rathole prompted by a seemingly innocuous but rather naive question (from Michael). Now we're off in some there's A Big Deal mode. I personally believe that reasonable developers can make sense of the spec. I also believe that we can do a reasonable job of ensuring what is, after all, the key point: that the syntaxes conform to the model (when viewed from the right level of abstraction). We have an existence proof in the form of the OWL API. I do not believe it is necessary to produce scripts either. Actually, I don't find a strong need to heavily document the relationship between the various bits where it's quite obvious, though I don't object to adding some text. Could someone point to actual problems? The order thing just isn't one. Cheers, Bijan.Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2008 16:33:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:50 UTC