The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document

Bijan had expressed a view [1] that including the syntax productions in 
the NF&R
was needless duplication (my paraphrasing) of material from other 
documents.  Christine
and I have discussed this offline and here is our position.

******************************************************

We think that a description of the syntax for each feature is needed
in the document for properly describing the features in order to
ground all the other discussion about the feature.  Without this, the
document would not be complete.

It makes the new features being discussed concrete which
really helps in understanding for all the related discussion such as:
- why do we have the feature
- and the theoretical and implementation perspective on it.
It would also be a pain for the reader to jump to the syntax document
at each feature discussed in NF&R.

We also think that the functional syntax is the best syntax for this
purpose.  First, this syntax is a good compromise of readability and
user-friendly syntax.  Furthermore, it is the syntax used in the Syntax
document, so when the reader does go to that document for reference
and more details, it will be a smooth transition from what he or she
has already seen.

Christine and Evan

******************************************************


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Feb/0261.html

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 16:43:08 UTC