[SCL] Approach to a concrete syntax

[Tanel Tammet]

Hi,

Just read the intense discussion about the concrete syntax. I have not 
been writing any
modifications to the current drafts, new concrete syntaxes or 
participated in the
conf calls: wanted to look how things settle.

It seems that the XML concrete syntax I wrote and Murray continued to 
work on
has created a lot of contradictions, since people do have different 
aims/viewpoints,
roughly like this:

- markup viewpoint
- FOL viewpoint
- RDF/RFS family viewpoint

The current XML concrete syntax does not fit nicely into the RDF/RDFS 
viewpoint
and this has created uneasy feelings for people. In whatever way we 
improve/modify
the current XML concrete syntax, this problem won't change.

It now seems to me that maybe we should drop the current XML concrete syntax
(not that it should be REALLY dropped or that  Murray should drop it) but
rather avoid putting any stress on it at all: not publish it in the SCL 
papers once we
create these.

Instead we should perhaps really create the RDF/RDFS-friendly version of 
concrete
XML syntax instead and work on improving this syntax.

Some time ago I sent a few very rough notes about 
RDF/RDFS-friendly-SCL-in-XML
syntax. Thought more about it by now. We also have the real SCL draft by 
now
(what we hadn't at the time of the previous SCL-in-XML draft).

For example, the real SCL draft clearly specifies the RDF/RDFS-semantics 
style
meaning of predicates: a predicate is converted to a constant in FOL and
we use Pred or App constructors to transform SCL to FOL. Since this 
approach
seems to be more or less agreed upon (I was not sure about it before and
asked a few times) it is consequently clear that the SCL is NOT meant to be
a syntax for FOL in general, but FOL usage in the context of RDF/RDFS.

It seems that the latter viewpoint (RDF/RDFS prioritised) was assumed by
the majority of the SCL group, but not by me (prioritising a FOL viewpoint)
or Murray (prioritising a markup viewpoint). This difference is 
counterproductive.
I'll switch over to prioritising the RDF/RDFS needs.

Also, it seems that it would be productive to consider SCL-in-XML concrete
syntax very clearly as a concrete syntax for SCL, and not as a separate
language in its own rights.

To summarise: it seems that the discussion about the current SCL-in-XML
syntax has become a bit less productive or relevant than it initially seemed
and we really need a different SCL-in-XML, which would:
- follow the current SCL spec draft
- match the RDF/RDFS viewpoint.

Will attempt to write such a draft during weekend and post it.

Regards,
            Tanel Tammet