Dear all,
seeing "single language, single bnf" as a decision point on the agenda for thursdays telecon shows me I've probably misinterpreted the core vs. extensions discussion (or I'm misinterpreting the point on the agenda).
On 2006-11-02 05:59, Doug Tody wrote:
> Hence, in defining
> ADQL we should probably not try to prejudge usage, and should rather
> merely define the language, leaving issues of capabilities to be defined
> when ADQL is used in some more specific context.
I agree on that defining what's core and what are extensions in the language could probably be a disadvantage for certain services having needs we didn't (or even couldn't) think of now. However, imo defining the language as one big monolithic block is not the best approach to solve this problem. By defining ADQL in a very modular way, each service definition could then pick some of these modules and define them as "required" for the service, leaving the remaining modules "optional" or "extension".
Benjamin
-- Dipl.-Inf. Benjamin Gufler Lehrstuhl Informatik III Tel. +49 89 289-17276 Fax +49 89 289-17263 Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748 Garching Raum FMI 02.11.035Received on 2006-11-14Z09:59:48