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

kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer) writes:
> 
> "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> > 
> > "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
> 
> As far as I can see, this is a slight elaboration (and, perhaps, a visually
> more convenient form) of your own proposal of a couple of weeks ago.
> Can you explain where do you see the differences?

If you find this:

  class2token('Equal','=')
  abs2con4g('Equal'
            '('
               'side' '->' TERM1
               'side' '->' TERM2
             ')',
          TokenTable)
   =
    TERM1 lookup('Equal',TokenTable) TERM2

more "visually convenient" than this:

  Equal ::= left::Term '=' right::Term

then I have no idea where to begin this discussion.   

> (Your syntax was at times at odds with the formal syntax, and that has been
> fixed. 

I think I was trying to match the BNF not the formal syntax, but that
was just for illustration purposes anyway.

> Otherwise, the two seem basically isomorphic to me.)

They appear equalent in some essential ways -- a bit like C++ and
assembly are equivalent, I guess.  I have a pretty strong preference for
one style over the other.

    -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 04:54:34 UTC