- From: Adrian Giurca <giurca@tu-cottbus.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:05:24 +0100
- To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>, Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- CC: RIF WG <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Dear all,
> Great, I have edited the two diagrams / (meta-)models to
> initialize the Overview (Arch) Section:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Overview
>
>
Looking to the RIF Core metamodel (the MOF/UML diagrams) a number of
questions arise:
* The existent BNF and the actual MOF/UML metamodel are NOT
equivalent. For example the definition of equality (Equal): in
the MOF model equality orders the terms implied (by using roles
/lhs /and /rhs/) but in the BNF (Equal ::= TERM '=' TERM) no
order is imposed. Lets try from the beginning to be more precise
in such cases. I believe that BNF must align with the MOF abstract
syntax.
* Why we need the roles /formula/ and /declare/? How are they
specified in the BNF?
* Interesting, the last document of Core Positive Conditions
contains now in the BNF two productions for /Atom /and /Expr /even
they are the same in content. This separate de facto atoms from
functions.
* I suppose in the past was a problem of multiple inheritance (/Expr
/was inheriting from both /Atom /and /TERM/) which creates
troubles for tools to generate XMI, but in the MOF specification
this is NOT restricted.
* The naming of classes/roles are not appropriate. Why /arg /and not
/arguments/?
Thanks,
Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 09:06:41 UTC