- From: Christian de Sainte Marie <csma@ilog.fr>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:14:34 +0100
- To: Gerd Wagner <wagnerg@tu-cottbus.de>
- CC: "'Dave Reynolds'" <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Chris Welty'" <cawelty@gmail.com>, "'RIF'" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Gerd, All, Regarding the general issue of meta-models being or not being abstract syntaxes: I wonder if the problem is not, really, with MOF/UML (and, thus, MOF/UML meta-model), rather than with abstract syntax VS meta-model. The point is that a large part of the WG participants are not familiar or comfortable with MOF/UML meta-models and that, as a consequence, we decided that we would not use a MOF/UML meta-model as the support for our discussions wrt the abstract syntax of RIF Core. That does not mean that, once we agree, in the WG, on an abstract syntax for RIF Core, it will not be useful to specify the corresponding MOF/UML metamodel: actually, it would be really good to have that activity within OMG, and to keep it in synch with the RIF activity in W3C. But the point of the resolution is that the discussion of details and specificities of MOF/UML meta-modeling should not slow the progress and RIF, when they are not specifically relevant to RIF Regarding vocabularies, Gerd Wagner wrote: > > Basically, yes, a vocabulary is a more explicit form of what is also > called a "signature" in predicate logic: > it defines the symbols for individuals, functions and predicates > (pre-defined/built-in and user-defined). That's what I tried calling an externally-defined or an application-specific or an extra-logical vocabulary or ... and got only empty glares in return. At last, some support from academia! Chris Welty wrote: > This is Christian's favorite topic... Yes! Christian
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 14:17:56 UTC