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

I agree. The grammar productions could be off-putting to many people  
and significantly reduce its utility for them. I don't see a  
compensating increase in utility for others.

IMHO it would make *much* more sense to replicate the presentation  
style of the Quick Reference Guide (as suggested by Uli). E.g., for  
disjoint union, instead of:

DisjointUnion := 'DisjointUnion' '(' { Annotation } Class  
ClassExpression ClassExpression { ClassExpression } ')'

you could have:

DisjointUnionOf(C C1 … Cn), where C and Ci are OWL classes

This is much easier to understand and much less "threatening". And if  
this is right for the QR, then surely it is also right for NF&R.

Ian


On 5 Mar 2009, at 15:10, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

> 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 Friday, 6 March 2009 19:44:43 UTC