Re: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

> Coming out of the meeting, it seemed like like we needed a more detailed
> abstract syntax for talking about RIF without getting bogged down in
> serialization details.  (Also, for talking about serialization details,
> without getting bogged down in fundamentals of the language.)

Sandro,
Can you please formulate what exactly is the problem using more concrete terms?
What is the problem with BNF syntax that we use and how does your sketch
resolves that?


	--michael  


> After not finding a good candidate, I put one together, which I call
> asn06.  It's a bit like BNF, and a bit like a class hierarchy
> declaration.  It's a way for writing down abstract syntaxes, like UML
> diagrams (being use for this in Common Logic and OWL 1.1), or the text
> diagrams on Harold's last slide at the meeting and Hassan's ACTION-87
> e-mail [1].
> 
> There's a description of asn06 on the wiki:
>    http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/asn06
> 
> Below is a first pass translation of the positive condition syntax [2]
> into asn06, which Harold and I just did.  I've put question marks where
> role/property names should go.  (They are not in the EBNF.)  Names need
> to be made up to go here.
> 
>      -- Sandro
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2006Oct/0083
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/A.1_Basis%3A_Positive_Conditions
> 
> ================================================================
> 
> Condit
>    
>    Litform
>      
>       Atom
>         rel: Identifer
>         ?: Term
> 
>       Equal
>          ?: Term
>          ?: Term
> 
>    Quantif
>        ?: Var+
>        ?: Condit
> 
>        Exists
> 
> 
>    And
>       ?: Condit*
> 
>    Or
>       ?: Condit*
> 
> Term
>   
>    Con, inherits Identifier
> 
>    Var, inherits Identifier
> 
>    Expr
>       ?: Identifier
>       ?: Term*
> 
> Identifier, inherits xsd:string
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 12 November 2006 03:30:45 UTC