- From: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:55:04 +0100
- To: "'Dave Reynolds'" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Christian de Sainte Marie'" <csma@ilog.fr>
- Cc: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> I agree UML is genuine option. > > As you say there is the "interchange within the WG" issue that we've > already discussed [1]. Why not exchanging diagrams (together with some serialization, e.g. in OWL)? > Second there is the issue that the point of this is for > extensibility. > In Sandro's "use a small OWL fragment with syntactic sugar" > proposal we > can exploit the extensibility of OWL. When an extension needs > to add new > productions to an existing abstract syntax node it just > declares a new > subclass. That new declaration can be in another self contained OWL > model and merging the two models is both well defined and > simple. It's > not clear to me that either is true of merging in the UML case, but > perhaps that's a limitation of my knowledge of UML. Yes, it is. UML provides sophisticated ways of merging packages (similar to XMLS's possibilities with import and redefine). > Third, in Sandro's extensibility proposal [2] a RIF processor > would go > out and resolve the namespace of a unknown syntax element and > obtain ... > something. With the asn06-as-OWL approach that something could be or > include OWL. Whereas the equivalent for UML, XMI, really > seems to be a > tool for diagram exchange rather than runtime data exchange [3]. No, XMI is a model, not a diagram, exchange language, so you have all of the language definition encoded. > [By the way, how does "list of X" work in UML?] I don't see for what this would be needed in an abstract syntax? -Gerd
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2006 20:55:34 UTC