Re: Grammar presentation syntax FLD and BLD

Michael Kifer wrote:
>>> Further, to dramatically improve readability of examples and test cases, 
>>> I'd suggest
>>>  Const          ::= LITERAL '^^' SYMSPACE  |  NUMERIC  |  ALPHANUMERIC
>>> where the last 2 options are sugar that allows one to omit any enclosing 
>>> "" or trailing ^^xsd:decimal or ^^rif:local.
>> I agree that we want to improve readability of examples.  incidentally, 
>> I think it is much more convenient to abbreviate IRIs rather than local 
>> symbols, since local symbols will not be used very often (I think): the 
>> names of local symbols are not accessible outside the rule set.
>> However, I'm not sure this BNF is the place.  I think we can just say 
>> something like:
>> For readability, in the examples throughout this document and in other 
>> documents we use the following abbreviations:
>> *  "ns#localname"^^rif:iri as compact URIs of the form prefix:localname
>> *  "numeric+(.numeric+)?"^^xsd:decimal as numbers numeric+(.numeric+)?
> I am reluctant to do this in the official RIF specification, because it is
> supposed to illustrate how exactly things are supposed to be written in the
> language.  (Unofficial) tutorials and papers are a different matter. There
> people can do whatever they want.
The problem is the test cases.  Aren't they "official"?  And yet I would 
like them to be readable (and writable), and I don't think it is 
desirable to have each test case be in a different language, as Sandro 
suggests.  Implementers would get a lot of valuable ideas about how to 
build their translators from reading the test cases, but only if they 
can read the test cases.


Oracle <>
Gary Hallmark | Architect | +1.503.525.8043
Oracle Server Technologies
1211 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800
Portland, OR 97204

Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 19:04:40 UTC