RE: Glossary entry: Abstract syntax

> 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?

You say that "Meta-models (see Meta-model) describe the structure 
of models and so are closely related to the notion of an Abstract 
Syntax". But, in fact, metamodels define a language by defining
their abstract syntax (together with well-formedness rules or 
constraints).

I don't see the problem that "In meta-modelling ... one would just 
say that a constant has an associated sort without saying how that 
sort gets defined". Of course, in a metamodel you can both declare
and use (or refer to) a language element (such as a rif:constant). 
Typically, you declare the language element in one package and
you use (or refer to) it in another package.

-Gerd

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 23:33:06 UTC