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

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Dan Connolly

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.


--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Nicolas F Rouquette

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.
>
>
>  


Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

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

Dan Connolly

On Fri, 2006-08-18 at 13:03 -0700, Nicolas Rouquette wrote:

> 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.

Ah... I'm glad you got in touch with various developers.

>
> 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.

As far as I can tell, the details are about the OWLAPI source
code (which W3C does not maintain), not about the OWL
specification documents (which W3C does maintain).

>  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
> >
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E


Loading...