Oops (Re: Review comments on OWL Semantics)

One comment was wrong:

> [[
> The abstract syntax is specified here by means of a version of Extended 
> BNF. Terminals are not quoted; non-terminals are enclosed in pointy 
> brackets ; and alternatives are either separated by vertical bars 
> (|) or are given in different productions. Elements that can occur at 
> most once are enclosed in square brackets (; elements that can 
> occur any number of times (including zero) are enclosed in braces (.
> ]]
> Qu why not use a more standard EBNF formalism?
> e.g.
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-ebnf.html

You do use this formalism; I retract this question.


Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 08:56:31 UTC