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

Thank you for your feedback(s). Given the opinion of many
organizations and the clarification about the "normativity" concern, I
have started to replace the syntax productions by the suggested syntax
similar to that used in QRG.

Thus please note that I am presentely *being editing* the document. At
the same time I am integrating *several* other revisions, e.g. the
fully typed syntax (which I disagree).  I'll let you know as soon as a
new version is available online.

We plan to add some text for OWL/XML, QL vs RL, among other.
Would it be also necessary to add some text about OWL 2 DL vs OWL 2
Full (naming issue) and the global restrictions in that document ?

Reminder:
I'd be grateful to receive your input regarding other additions or
topics related to LC responses.


Christine


2009/3/6 Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>:
> 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
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



-- 
Christine

Received on Sunday, 8 March 2009 13:51:29 UTC