- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:44:42 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
> On Nov 12, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Michael Kifer wrote: > > I think what you are trying to define is an ontology for rule parts > > (or maybe a UML-like diagram). This is fine and useful, but I don't > > think > > it is a substitute for a concise BNF. Also, I don't agree that BNF's > > parts > > are unnamed. They look perfectly named to me (by nonterminals). > > Yes, I'm not sure I understand what BNF lacks either. > > Two data points: > > (1) The recent OWL 1.1 draft uses UML > 17 October 2006 > http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk/owl_specification.html Yes, along with BNF. Pictorial representation is certainly very useful for human understanding, but less so for a machine. I think this is why they use both representations. > (2) I am developing a tool to convert the BNF notation > from the XML specification to an RDF representation. > > bnf2turtle -- write a turtle version of an EBNF grammar > 2006-02-10 > http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/85 Cool! --michael
Received on Sunday, 12 November 2006 10:44:53 UTC