- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:10:40 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
For what it's worth, I'm not particularly happy that it has grammar productions either. -Rinke ----------------------------------------------- Drs. Rinke Hoekstra Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra Phone: +31-20-5253497 Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke Visit: Kloveniersburgwal 48, room ET1.09c Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands ----------------------------------------------- On 5 mrt 2009, at 16:04, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > If NF&R has grammar productions (and I'm not happy that it has), then > there needs to be visible disclaimers that NF&R is non-normative. > > peter > > > From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov> > Subject: The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document > Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:42:16 -0500 > >> >> 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 Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:11:16 UTC