- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:49:53 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu (Michael Kifer), Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>, "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On 22 Apr 2008, at 02:36, Sandro Hawke wrote: > I'm such a flip-flopper; maybe I should run for President. > > While I liked Axel's proposal, I think I also get Michael's point, > that > (to paraphrase) the Presentation Syntax is not a real rule > language. If > we want a real (usable) rule lanuage, we should carefully design one, > not just add random patches to the PS. [snip] It's a fantasy, in my experience, to think that something called a "Presentation Syntax" is *not* going to get used as a concrete syntax. It will just be an underspecified one. (See the old OWL abstract syntax for one example.) What's the objection to using XML directly? For spec purposes, relax- ng grammars are reasonably compact. For examples, well, I'd personally rather have the actual syntax I'm supposed to be exchanging. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 08:48:01 UTC