- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 17:03:08 +0100
- To: Anne.Anderson@sun.com
- Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
On Sep 15, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Anne Anderson wrote: > Just a caution on making formal semantics normative: The OASIS > XACML 2.0 specification used Haskell to specify the semantics of > our higher order functions. When the specification was submitted > to the ITU for cross-standardization, there was no approved > standard for Haskell that we could reference. In order to satisfy > ITU requirements, we had to make the Haskell description non- > normative and the English text description the normative version. First, the WG voted against doing this so it's a bit moot. Second, I would do it directly, in Englihs. Formal doesn't mean not in English :) Third, if I were going to do it by reference to another computer language I would do it by translation to OWL. But I wouldn't (and didn't) propose this because I'm not sure future extensions could all be translated into OWL. So, I don't think that would have been a problem :) If the informal English is good enough, then the formalizing English should be good enough. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 15 September 2006 16:03:09 UTC