Re: BLD: two issues with the BNF

>> I uncovered two issues with the BNF in BLD.  For me they are not 
>> critical for last call, but for some they might be.
> 
> Jos,
> thanks for uncovering these inconsistencies.
> 
>> The first issue is an error: Profile is not a Unicode string in the 
>> presentation syntax, but it is a term (see section 2.4).
> 
> Yes, this is how it is defined in the math syntax, but EBNF is not consistent
> with this. But looking at your SWC, your profiles are not terms either. They
> are not even constants! 

Actually, they are.  But I'm using the shortcut syntax for absolute IRIs 
using the <> delimiters.

 > So, let's decide what we want them to be.
> A term as a profile is very general and will suffice for all future needs. But
> this may also turn out to be an overkill. A constant is more like what you need
> right now. But what you are using is really a bunch of ASCII strings - not
> terms and not constants.

I would prefer them to be IRI constants; at least, I think IRIs should 
be written in the same way in most places.
I would not be against more general constants, or even terms, for that 
matter (although I don't really see the point).

> 
>> The second issue is not an error, but it can be considered misleading 
>> (the BNF is too liberal): in the presentation syntax, rules are 
>> quantified rule implications.  So, an atomic formula is not a rule and 
>> may thus not be directly included in a group.  According to the BNF, an 
>> atomic formula can be considered a rule; this is misleading.
> 
> There was a mistake in the math syntax. Groups should also allow atomic
> formulas. Fixed.

Great!  This means I will not have changed the syntax in several places 
in SWC :-)

Best, Jos

> 
> m
> 
>> Best, Jos

-- 
                          debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
One man that has a mind and knows it can
always beat ten men who haven't and don't.
   -- George Bernard Shaw