Re: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

Michael Kifer wrote:
>>> I find the formulation
>>>
>>>     Implies
>>>        head: LitForm
>>>        body: Condit
>>>
>>> makes it much more clear that "head" and "body" name the roles that the
>>> parts of the implication statement play.
>>>       
>> Ah; that's a good illustration.
>>
>> Like Michael (13 Nov 2006 20:21:21 +0100) I'm happy to use turtle,
>> I'm beginning to see your point.
>>     
>
> I am not against a frame notation like the above. But in my view this has
> to do with an ontology of rule parts rather than with the syntax.
> When we do XML syntax I don't think it is useful to get out of our way to
> emphasize that the head and the body can come in any order. In fact, this
> is useless and harmful, IMO.
>   

Michael,

To paraphrase your own message of 11/11,

Can you please formulate what exactly is the problem using more concrete terms?
What is the problem with asn06 syntax that Sandro has used and how does BNF resolve that?

I do not understand your objection nor your use of the terms "useless" and "harmful" here.

Thanks,
Chris


-- 
Dr. Christopher A. Welty                    IBM Watson Research Center
+1.914.784.7055                             19 Skyline Dr.
cawelty@frontiernet.net                     Hawthorne, NY 10532
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty

Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 23:08:58 UTC