Re: The issue of syntax productions within the NF&R document

I strongly disagree with this perspective.

First, it is inconsistent with other decisions we've made, for  
example, to include a full grammar for each of the profiles. The  
argument there was that fragments of a grammar were hard to understand  
for *developers* and we're proposing to push these onto *users*? That  
seems very odd.

Second, the grammar productions are incomplete, so one has to jump to  
the syntax document anyway.

Third, if you actually *do* want to delve into a feature, the syntax  
document (or the primer) is the right place to go. People *should* be  
encouraged to go there.

Forth, no one, I trust, feels the need to include a grammar production  
in the primer. Examples suffice. The NF&R is *justifying* the new  
features, not giving a tutorial nor defining it.

BTW, the NF&R doesn't even define the *syntax for the grammar  
productions*. Nor does it give a link to such a definition in the  
syntax document. This *completely* belies the idea that was meant to  
be helpful to new readers, and, especially, that i was seriously  
tested on users. My guess is that people just skip them as  
meaningless. I wouldn't, because I like to delve, but I would be  
horribly frustrated by them.

There's no prima facie argument why they are needed and there is no,  
afaict, all things considered argument why they'd be helpful.

Finally, it's even *more* important that NF&R have multiple syntaxes  
since the people most inclined to read it (and need it) are people  
transitioning from old OWL. If you are new to OWL, period, then NF&R  
is irrelevant. (Why would you care what's *new*?)

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2009 15:17:07 UTC