[Scl] Re: Report on Common Logic

[Murray Altheim]

pat hayes wrote:
[...]
> John, we still await a CG concrete syntax.
> 
> Everyone else: we also still need an XML concrete syntax.

Pat,

Are things actually stable enough for that yet? Don't questions
about seqvars have to be answered definitively first? Are there
any other outstanding issues that you guys need to agree upon?

After that's done, an XML syntax still isn't completely
straightforward. Like any language, you need to decide exactly
what you're trying to do with it. Just *one* of the questions
I brought up early on was "web-enabled" or not? Use of URIs or
not? Any extensibility, so it can be the basis of other languages?
Does it have to be RDF-based, or can it be a new language? Etc.

If there's to be an XML version of CL, a list of requirements
should be the first thing created, which, if you remember, was
the first part of the XCL proposal I created way back when, in
the section on "Design Goals":

    XML Common Logic (XCL) 1.0, 8 May 2003.
    http://purl.org/xcl/1.0/

Then, when the requirements have been written and the requirements
have been agreed upon, then somebody can close their mind and just
write grammar rules. Until then, there could be three or four or
more XML grammars that would "do" CL. First question is, what do you
really want from an XML version? Hopefully not just to be able to
say "there is an XML version." What are the goals?

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

   Monkeys use thoughts to control robotic arm
     http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/10/13/MN2018.DTL
   Bush uses media expertly to push apocalyptic view
     http://truthout.org/docs_03/091403J.shtml