Glossary entry: Abstract syntax

• From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:00:49 +0000
• To: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <45EEFDD1.7050103@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Given the discussions at F2F5 I thought it might be useful to add a 
glossary entry to capture the way we have been using the term "abstract 
syntax". I've tried to keep it brief.

http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Abstract_Syntax

Is this sort of thing useful?

Does this entry capture our intent accurately and clearly enough?
[I'm not trying to reopen any of the debates here, if the page is wrong 
or inadequate I'll improve or withdraw it.]

Are there other similar terminology confusions which have come up that 
we should be documenting in the glossary?

Dave

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 18:02:29 UTC