[TED] Abstract Syntax and Abstract-to-Concrete Mappings

• From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
• Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:38:50 -0400
• To: "Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca>
• Cc: "RIF WG" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <11321.1189391930@ubuhebe>

"Boley, Harold" <Harold.Boley@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> writes:
> 
> Based on the recent discussions, I updated the Abstract Syntax by also
> just using EBNF and introduced Abstract-to-Concrete Mappings for:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Positive_Conditions
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Horn_Rules
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Slotted_Conditions
> 
> Thus, unresolved dependencies on a future metalanguage for defining
> the RIF Syntax were removed, especially in the Slotted Conditions.
> This can now contribute to speeding up our editorial BLD WD2 work.

What's the advantage of this formalism over SBNF?  It seems much more
complicated to me.

    - s

Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 02:42:04 UTC