Re: asn0n vs OWL vs. UML

Paul Vincent wrote:
> 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). 

I agree it is at least somewhat secondary, sorry for prolonging the thread.

> 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)

Sure. In terms of just writing down and communicating abstract syntax 
between ourselves and human implementers we can mix and match to our 
heart's content.

The reason this seemed worth discussing is the question of how we handle 
language extensions and forward compatibility. To me that is a key part 
of what makes RIF viable. Sandro's proposal that translators can 
implicitly of explicitly resolve extension syntax elements to fetch the 
associated syntax extensions and "must understand" metadata seems like 
the right approach. It is the role of these different representations in 
that extension mechanism that seems worth at least some discussion.

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

:-)

Dave

> 
> * 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 13:15:56 UTC