Re: proposed: use abstract syntax notation (asn06)

Michael Kifer wrote:
>> 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.
>   

OK, then you haven't understood the proposal.  It is not about ordering, 
it is about identifying the role something plays in a piece of syntax.  
Imagine a language (like FOL) where the head and body of the rule have 
the same syntax, in BNF you would have something like:

Rule: <expr> :- <expr>

Whereas in a frame-based abstract syntax you say:

Rule
  head: <expr>
  body: <expr>

And as we will see, extensions to the language actually look like 
extensions, rather than having to rewrite large parts of the BNF for 
each one.


> (I emphasized that, in principle, I am not against an ontology for rule
> parts which is how I see Sandro's.)
>   

Indeed, they are related, and this is another advantage.

> 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.
>   

There are many reasons why our progress has been slow.  But this issue 
is primary, so let's get it out of the way so we can get to the next one.

-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 Tuesday, 14 November 2006 01:36:05 UTC