<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
* I am confused about the term "structured OMS". The glossary
definition of structured OMS is<br>
<br>
\termdefinition{structured OMS\synonym focused OMS}<br>
{\termref{OMS} that results from other \termref{OMS} by
\termref{import}, \termref{union}, \termref{combination},
\termref{renaming} or other structuring operations}<br>
\begin{note}<br>
The term ``focused OMS'' emphasizes the fact that the OMS, while
possibly<br>
involving many OMS as parts, has a single resulting
\termref{logical theory}.<br>
This is in contrast to \termref{distributed OMS}, which do not
have<br>
such a unique result, but rather comprise a network of OMS and<br>
\termref{mappings}. See \cite{MossakowskiTarlecki09}.<br>
\end{note}<br>
<br>
As I read this, a basic OMS cannot be structured OMS - it is not
the result of a structuring operation applied to another OMS.<br>
<br>
Elsewhere, the phrase "sentence or structured OMS" is used,
suggesting that it is considered a structuring operation when a
number of sentences are joined together in a basic OMS, so that a
basic OMS would be a structured OMS.<br>
<br>
It seems more natural to me that structured and basic OMS would be
a disjoint partition of OMS. All OMS languages that I know have an
internal operation for jointly asserting sentences as a logical
theory, while the other kinds of structuring operations are not
universal.<br>
<br>
* If the term "distributed OMS" is replaced by "OMS network", then
the question arises as to what OMS are not focused. <br>
<br>
The current definition of OMS is<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
{set of expressions (like \termref{non-logical symbols},
\termref{sentences} and \termref{structuring} elements) in a given
\termref{OMS language} (or several such languages)}% <br>
<br>
I think it would better to define OMS as a 'collection' of
expressions rather than a set. Saying something 'is a' set does
not leave room for additional structure.<br>
<br>
So here's my proposal<br>
<br>
\termdefinition{OMS}<br>
{collection of expressions (like \termref{non-logical symbols},
\termref{sentences} and \termref{structuring} elements) in a given
\termref{OMS language} (or several such languages).}<br>
<br>
\termdefinition{focused OMS}<br>
{\termref{OMS} that has a single resulting \termref{logical
theory}.}<br>
<br>
\termdefinition{structured OMS}<br>
{\termref{OMS} that results from other \termref{OMS} by
\termref{import}, \termref{union}, \termref{combination},
\termref{renaming} or other structuring operations}<br>
\begin{note}<br>
An OMS is either a basic or structured OMS.<br>
\end{note}<br>
<br>
Finally, I see that the present approach is to consider queries as
a subclass of OMSs. It is unclear to me how the inclusion of a
query into a structured and focused OMS would affect the "single
resulting logical theory". <br>
<br>
Does it make sense to consider a query as an OMS, but not a
focused OMS, which could be a component of a structured OMS (which
would then also be not focused?<br>
<br>
Tara<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>