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.

The attribution of "useless" and "harmful" is very clear in the above, and
it doesn't refer to Sandro's proposal as such.
The "useless" and "harmful" refers to going out of the way to ensure that
XML syntax doesn't order the terms.
(I emphasized that, in principle, I am not against an ontology for rule
parts which is how I see Sandro's.)


Regarding the "problem", which I see, I also explained it in a previous
message: Our progress is slow because we are getting side-tracked by
tertiary issues.


	cheers
	  --michael

Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 23:17:57 UTC