Re: Comments & bugs on the abstract syntax and its sourceforge implementation

Dan,

I had received an email from Daniele Turi where he asked if I had done / 
could do / wanted to do something to help (can't remember which).

Shortly afterwards, the Mindswappers visited JPL and I brought up this 
issue to Bijan's attention.
Apparently, there was already enough cooks tinkering w/ the API between 
the mindwappers,
Holger (then at Stanford) and the Jena folks.

I've peeked at the CVS repository and noticed the abstract grammar that 
Daniele originally wrote
hasn't changed -- 
http://owlapi.cvs.sourceforge.net/owlapi/owl/abstractparser/grammar/
but the lexer has and so did the renderers.

Are my concerns still applicable? I'd have to take a look;
unfortunately, I'm overbooked as it is with my current tasks
to have much time looking into it. However, my comments
were very detailed. If I had idle students around, I'd put
one to take a look at it --  after all, the language was designed
to be simple; how hard could it be for a student fresh out of
compiler construction 101?

-- Nicolas.

Dan Connolly wrote:
> Hi. I just discovered your message of May 2005.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2005May/0005.html
>
> Did you ever get a response? I don't see one. Terribly sorry about that.
>
> As far as I can tell, your comments are about some OWLAPI sourceforge
> project; I'm not familiar with it. I don't see a pointer in your
> message.
> Google nominates http://sourceforge.net/projects/owlapi but it
> seems to be down at the moment. They seem to have a owlapi-developer
> mailing list. Have you tried that?
>
> You might also try the public-owl-dev mailing list hosted by W3C.
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/
>
> If there's anything in your comment about the OWL specification
> documents per se, please clarify.
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 18 August 2006 20:03:59 UTC