RE: asn0n vs OWL vs. UML

The deep discussions of what to use to best define RIF are somewhat depressing to me (*to me*, abstract syntax implies language, yet the role of RIF is primarily an interchange "format"; its potential role as a language is only secondary). 

Can it make sense to use ALL the mechanisms important to RIF members?
- I would be interested in a metamodel eg in UML for compatibility with PRR and other modelling standards
- ontologists would be interested in an OWL representation
- language specialists would* be interested in the use of ASN (and probably BNF)

I am hoping we don't need to develop an Abstract Syntax Interchange Format before we can progress...

* speculation on my part; googling for ASN06 found Sandro's RIF page on the topic - http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/asn06 (useful, but not what I was looking for); Wikipedia only had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Syntax_Notation_One 



Paul Vincent
TIBCO - ETG/Business Rules 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-rif-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rif-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gerd Wagner
Sent: 22 November 2006 11:11
To: 'Dave Reynolds'
Cc: 'Christian de Sainte Marie'; 'Sandro Hawke'; public-rif-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: asn06/OWL vs. UML [was: asn06 take 2 (Abstract Syntax as a kind of ontology?)]


> >> [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?
> 
> In the abstract syntax we do need to identify places where 
> ordering is significant. 

This is expressible in UML with the help of the {ordered} constraint, 
see e.g. the REWERSE R2ML metamodel diagram
http://oxygen.informatik.tu-cottbus.de/R2ML/0.4/metamodel/R2MLv0.4_files/png
_23.htm

-Gerd

Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2006 12:40:11 UTC