From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Sun Sep 7 12:55:25 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 13:55:25 +0300 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Next OntoIOp telecon on Wed. Sept. 10 Message-ID: <540C399D.10800@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear all, after summer break, let us start again on Wednesday September 10, at the usual time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 pm EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST / 5:00pm SAST / 0:00am [+1] KST / 15:00 UTC I will send around a more detailed invitation and a new document on Monday. All the best, Till From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Tue Sep 9 23:10:10 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 23:10:10 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 Message-ID: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> [sorry, have sent this earlier but to the old address...] Dear all, our next OntoIOp team conference call (n.63) is coming up this Wednesday, Sept-10. The topics are (in this order): - preperation of the OMG meeting starting on Sept. 15 - chapter 9 of the document (abstract syntax) - chapter 10 of the document (concrete syntax) The document is attached. All the best, Till = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.63) - Wed 2014.09.10 = < * Date: Wed 10-Sept-2014 * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 pm EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST / 5:00pm SAST / 0:00am [+1] KST / 15:00 UTC ** ref. world clock - http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=9&day=10&year=2014&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. * shared-file workspace: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-09-10_team-confcall_n.63/ * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140910 Remarks: * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of their participation at the session. * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute Dial-in: * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# * Skype: "join.conference" ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) Talk to you all then! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ebnf-OMG_OntoIOp_current.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1113385 bytes Desc: not available URL: From math.semantic.web at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 09:44:04 2014 From: math.semantic.web at gmail.com (Christoph LANGE) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 09:44:04 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <54100144.4040903@gmail.com> On 2014-09-09 23:10, Till Mossakowski wrote: > our next OntoIOp team conference call (n.63) is coming up this > Wednesday, Sept-10. > > The topics are (in this order): > - preperation of the OMG meeting starting on Sept. 15 > - chapter 9 of the document (abstract syntax) > - chapter 10 of the document (concrete syntax) Syntax, especially when it comes to URIs, is of interest to me, however I am still on holiday and will only be back on the 15th. Have a productive meeting! Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Enterprise Information Systems Department Applied Computer Science @ University of Bonn; Fraunhofer IAIS http://langec.wordpress.com/about, Skype duke4701 ? SEMANTiCS conference: Transfer?Engineering?Community. Leipzig, Germany, 4?5 September (workshops 1?3 September). Including Vocabulary Carnival, LOD for SMEs, Linked Data Quality. From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Wed Sep 10 17:04:46 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:04:46 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> please find attached the slides for the meeting Best, Till Am 09.09.2014 23:10, schrieb Till Mossakowski: > [sorry, have sent this earlier but to the old address...] > > Dear all, > > our next OntoIOp team conference call (n.63) is coming up this > Wednesday, Sept-10. > > The topics are (in this order): > - preperation of the OMG meeting starting on Sept. 15 > - chapter 9 of the document (abstract syntax) > - chapter 10 of the document (concrete syntax) > > The document is attached. > > All the best, > Till > > > = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.63) - Wed 2014.09.10 = > < > * Date: Wed 10-Sept-2014 > * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 pm EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST / > 5:00pm SAST / 0:00am [+1] KST / 15:00 UTC > ** ref. world clock - > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=9&day=10&year=2014&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 > * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. > * shared-file workspace: > http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-09-10_team-confcall_n.63/ > * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140910 > > > Remarks: > > * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless > otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of > their participation at the session. > > * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) > - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute > > Dial-in: > * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > * Skype: "join.conference" > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding > up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your > phone, skype-out or google-voice and > call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & > UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ > ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be > under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" > ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the > call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) > > > Talk to you all then! > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2014-09-09-DOL-overview.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1072433 bytes Desc: not available URL: From taraathan at gmail.com Wed Sep 10 19:00:26 2014 From: taraathan at gmail.com (Tara Athan) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:00:26 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <541083AA.3070704@gmail.com> I am still not too clear on the concept of "flattenable" defined as 0. flattenable = can be flattened to a basic OMS This doesn't help much since "flattened" is not defined. I see something of a recursive definition: a basic OMS is flattenable a focused OMS with all flattenable components is flattenable and some OMS, e.g. OMS reductions, are "elusive" which I presume to mean non-flattenable? Could someone please explain to me what makes an OMS "flattenable"? Thanks, Tara The Distributed Ontology, Modeling and Specification Language (DOL) Language overview On 9/10/14 11:04 AM, Till Mossakowski wrote: > please find attached the slides for the meeting > > Best, Till > > Am 09.09.2014 23:10, schrieb Till Mossakowski: >> [sorry, have sent this earlier but to the old address...] >> >> Dear all, >> >> our next OntoIOp team conference call (n.63) is coming up this >> Wednesday, Sept-10. >> >> The topics are (in this order): >> - preperation of the OMG meeting starting on Sept. 15 >> - chapter 9 of the document (abstract syntax) >> - chapter 10 of the document (concrete syntax) >> >> The document is attached. >> >> All the best, >> Till >> >> >> = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.63) - Wed 2014.09.10 = >> < >> * Date: Wed 10-Sept-2014 >> * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 pm EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST / >> 5:00pm SAST / 0:00am [+1] KST / 15:00 UTC >> ** ref. world clock - >> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=9&day=10&year=2014&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 >> * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. >> * shared-file workspace: >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-09-10_team-confcall_n.63/ >> * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140910 >> >> >> Remarks: >> >> * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless >> otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of >> their participation at the session. >> >> * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) >> - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute >> >> Dial-in: >> * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 >> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >> * Skype: "join.conference" >> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >> ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding >> up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your >> phone, skype-out or google-voice and >> call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 >> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >> ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & >> UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ >> ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be >> under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" >> ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the >> call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) >> >> >> Talk to you all then! >> >> >> >> >> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Wed Sep 10 21:34:09 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:34:09 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] ontoiop_20140910: Chat Transcript - sent by: TillMossakowski Message-ID: <5410A7B1.5080204@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> *Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20140910* *2014-09-10 GMT-08:00* *[08:00] *anonymous morphed into MariaKeet *[08:01] *anonymous morphed into TerryLongstreth *[08:03] **TerryLongstreth: *1.1 Para 1, delete "if all three can be treated in the same way." Para 2, unplural system "viewpoints on one domain or systems" Para 2, "interfacibility" not in any of my references. "Interfacability" is in Babylon. Better to rewrite the sentence and eliminate confusion. Para 3, "different OMS languages even of different expressiveness" -> "different OMS languages with differringj levels or degrees of expressiveness" Para 3 (Rule 1) , "between OMS formalized in different OMS languages." -> "between OMS' formalized in different OMS languages." Para 4 (Rule 1), "makes heterogeneous OMS" -> "makes heterogeneous OMS' " *[08:04] *anonymous morphed into ConradBock *[08:13] **TillMossakowski: *presentation of slides *[08:13] **TillMossakowski: *p.12: replace "distributed OMS" by "networked OMS"? *[08:17] **TillMossakowski: *e.g. a focused OMS: Class: Person SubClassOf: Being *[08:17] **TillMossakowski: *e.g. a distributed OMS: ontology O = Class: Person SubClassOf: Being graph G = O *[08:21] **TillMossakowski: *it is possible to go from focused OMS to distributed OMS in this way, but not backwards. So somehow focused OMS are parts of distributed OMS. *[08:22] **TillMossakowski: *The above example is degenerate. A better example is: ontology O1 = Class: Person SubClassOf: Being ontology O2 = Class: HumanBeing SubClassOf: Being alignment A : O1 to O2 = Person = HUamnBeing graph G = O1, O2, A *[08:30] *anonymous morphed into YAZMIN *[08:30] **TillMossakowski: *proposal to change "distributed OMS" to "OMS network" *[08:31] **TillMossakowski: *reason: an OMS network is not really an OMS, but more a statement of certain relations between OMS *[08:32] **TillMossakowski: *Hi Yazmin, Tara: please find the slides in your email. We are at p. 12 *[08:33] **MariaKeet: *(calling in is with "join.conference" in skype, not "joinconference" as mentioned in the email) *[08:33] **TaraAthan: *Hi Sorry I am late. *[08:33] **TerryLongstreth: *"deviate from the EBNF specification in ISO/IEC 14977:1996 in favour of a more modern and concise EBNF syntax." -> add footnote or pointer to where 'modern EBNF' is defined or describe delta between modern to standard EBNF. *[08:38] **TaraAthan: *What is the meaning of "flattening" in DOL - does this include resolution of importation? *[08:41] **TaraAthan: *The change of terminology from distributed OMS to OMS network is good from the perspective of API4KB - our (mostly aligned) terms for these are knowledge base and knowledge platform. *[08:42] **FabianNeuhaus: *GroupOMS ::= '{ *[08:42] **FabianNeuhaus: *GroupOMS ::= '{ OMS OMS* '} | OMSRef *[08:48] **FabianNeuhaus: *Entailment ::= OMS 'implies' ExtendingOMS *[08:50] **FabianNeuhaus: *or alternatively: Entailment ::= OMS 'entails' ExtentingOMS *[08:50] **MariaKeet: *I have to leave now. bye *[08:50] **FabianNeuhaus: *OMS then ExtendingOMs %implied *[08:51] **TillMossakowski: *Class Person Class Female Class: Woman EquivalentTo: Person and Female then %implies Class: Woman SubClassOf: Person and Female *[08:52] **FabianNeuhaus: *myontology entails Woman SubclassOf: Person *[08:52] **TillMossakowski: *myontology then %implies Class: Woman SubClassOf: Person and Female *[08:53] **FabianNeuhaus: *O1 entails phi *[08:54] **TillMossakowski: *entailment e = O1 entails phi *[08:56] **TaraAthan: *I see that ExtensionOMS and ExtensionName appear in the syntax. This was a question that I noticed while comparing LOLA to my ontology derived from the OntoIOp glossary. The term "extension" in the glossary appears to defining the concept behind ExtenionOMS, while an extension mapping is not specifically mentioned in the glossary. The parallel structure between the hierarchy of subclasses of Mapping and the hierarchy of subproperties of 'is mappable to' is mentioned in LOLA. *[09:01] **TaraAthan: *I frequently see things like with LogicTranslation+ [SymbolMapItems] to indicate a sequence of one or more. *[09:08] **TillMossakowski: *myontology with Class: Person *[09:10] **TillMossakowski: *myontology with Class: Person |-> HumanBeing, Class: Woman *[09:16] **TillMossakowski: *Reduction ::= 'hide' LogicReduction* SymbolItems | 'hide' LogicReduction+ | 'reveal' [SymbolMapItems] *[09:17] **TillMossakowski: *Reduction ::= 'hide' LogicReduction* SymbolItems | 'hide' LogicReduction+ | 'reveal' SymbolMapItems *[09:20] **TillMossakowski: *Extraction ::= 'extract' [ModuleProperties] [InterfaceSignature] | 'remove' [ModuleProperties] InterfaceSignature] ModuleProperties ::= Conservative | '%min' | '%depleting' | '%safe' *[09:22] **TillMossakowski: *InterfaceSignature could also be SeedSignature *[09:24] **TaraAthan: *Suggestions for glossary: extension mapping: mapping between two OMSs where the sets of non-logical symbols and sentences of the second OMS are supersets of those present in the first OMS Note: the second OMS is said to extend the first, and is an extension of the first OMS. *[09:25] **TillMossakowski: *suggestion to remove '%min' and '%depleting', as well as Conservative, because these are implied by the semantics anyway. *[09:26] **TillMossakowski: *%safe is more a statement about an import of a module, and hence should be a statement in an OMS network *[09:35] *List of attendees: ConradBock, FabianNeuhaus, MariaKeet, OliverKutz, TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski, YAZMIN, anonymous -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Wed Sep 10 21:34:56 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 21:34:56 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <541083AA.3070704@gmail.com> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541083AA.3070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5410A7E0.40902@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear Tara, indeed, there is a recursive definition avoiding thsemantically flattenablee circularity that you mention: An OMS is flattenable iff it is either a basic OMS or it is an extension, union, translation, module extraction, approximation, filtering, or import (= reference of named OMS) of flattenable OMS. Otherwise, it is elusive. This means indeed that elusive is just non-flattenable. This also means that you have to do an import analysis in order to determine flattenability: all the imported OMS must be flattenable, otherwise the given OMS cannot be flattenable. Put differently: one single elusive component makes an OMS elusive. Besides this syntactic notion of flattenability, there is also a semantic one: semantically flattenable <=> logically equivalent to a basic OMS The crucial property is: flattenable => semantically flattenable The converse is not true: also some (but not all) elusive OMS are semantically flattenable. Best, Till P.S. In the DOL document, I have added: \termdefinition{flattenable OMS} {OMS that can be seen, by purely syntactical means, to be logically equivalent to a basic OMS} \begin{note} More precisely, an OMS is flattenable if and only if it is either a basic OMS or it is an \termref{extension}, \termref{union}, translation, \termref{module extraction}, \termref{approximation}, \termref{filtering}, or reference of named OMS involving only flattenable OMS. \end{note} \termdefinition{elusive OMS} {OMS that is not \termref{flattenable}} Am 10.09.2014 19:00, schrieb Tara Athan: > I am still not too clear on the concept of "flattenable" defined as > > 0. > > flattenable = can be flattened to a basic OMS > > This doesn't help much since "flattened" is not defined. > > I see something of a recursive definition: > a basic OMS is flattenable > a focused OMS with all flattenable components is flattenable > > and some OMS, e.g. OMS reductions, are "elusive" which I presume to > mean non-flattenable? > > Could someone please explain to me what makes an OMS "flattenable"? > > Thanks, Tara > > The Distributed Ontology, Modeling and Specification Language (DOL) > Language overview > > On 9/10/14 11:04 AM, Till Mossakowski wrote: >> please find attached the slides for the meeting >> >> Best, Till >> >> Am 09.09.2014 23:10, schrieb Till Mossakowski: >>> [sorry, have sent this earlier but to the old address...] >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> our next OntoIOp team conference call (n.63) is coming up this >>> Wednesday, Sept-10. >>> >>> The topics are (in this order): >>> - preperation of the OMG meeting starting on Sept. 15 >>> - chapter 9 of the document (abstract syntax) >>> - chapter 10 of the document (concrete syntax) >>> >>> The document is attached. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Till >>> >>> >>> = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.63) - Wed 2014.09.10 = >>> < >>> * Date: Wed 10-Sept-2014 >>> * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 pm EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST / >>> 5:00pm SAST / 0:00am [+1] KST / 15:00 UTC >>> ** ref. world clock - >>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=9&day=10&year=2014&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 >>> * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. >>> * shared-file workspace: >>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-09-10_team-confcall_n.63/ >>> * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140910 >>> >>> >>> Remarks: >>> >>> * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless >>> otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of >>> their participation at the session. >>> >>> * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) >>> - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute >>> >>> Dial-in: >>> * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 >>> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >>> * Skype: "join.conference" >>> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >>> ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding >>> up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your >>> phone, skype-out or google-voice and >>> call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 >>> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >>> ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & >>> UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ >>> ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be >>> under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" >>> ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the >>> call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) >>> >>> >>> Talk to you all then! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de >> Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum >> Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum >> Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ >> Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From taraathan at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 15:49:31 2014 From: taraathan at gmail.com (Tara Athan) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 09:49:31 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <5410A7E0.40902@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541083AA.3070704@gmail.com> <5410A7E0.40902@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <5411A86B.1040904@gmail.com> The syntax does not show a category for flattenable OMS. Are there DOL assertions where the flattenable property is required? If so, then it would not be too difficult to create a syntactic category for flattenable OMS, where only the mappings that propagate flattenability are allowed in components. If not, then I don't understand why this property is needed in the DOL spec. Tara On 9/10/14 3:34 PM, Till Mossakowski wrote: > \termdefinition{flattenable OMS} > {OMS that can be seen, by purely syntactical means, to be logically > equivalent to a basic OMS} > \begin{note} > More precisely, an OMS is flattenable if and only if it is either a > basic OMS or it is an \termref{extension}, \termref{union}, > translation, \termref{module extraction}, \termref{approximation}, > \termref{filtering}, or reference of named OMS involving only > flattenable OMS. > \end{note} From taraathan at gmail.com Thu Sep 11 17:14:01 2014 From: taraathan at gmail.com (Tara Athan) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:14:01 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OMS: Structured focused basic distributed query In-Reply-To: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <5411BC39.1010203@gmail.com> * I am confused about the term "structured OMS". The glossary definition of structured OMS is \termdefinition{structured OMS\synonym focused OMS} {\termref{OMS} that results from other \termref{OMS} by \termref{import}, \termref{union}, \termref{combination}, \termref{renaming} or other structuring operations} \begin{note} The term ``focused OMS'' emphasizes the fact that the OMS, while possibly involving many OMS as parts, has a single resulting \termref{logical theory}. This is in contrast to \termref{distributed OMS}, which do not have such a unique result, but rather comprise a network of OMS and \termref{mappings}. See \cite{MossakowskiTarlecki09}. \end{note} As I read this, a basic OMS cannot be structured OMS - it is not the result of a structuring operation applied to another OMS. 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. 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. * If the term "distributed OMS" is replaced by "OMS network", then the question arises as to what OMS are not focused. The current definition of OMS is {set of expressions (like \termref{non-logical symbols}, \termref{sentences} and \termref{structuring} elements) in a given \termref{OMS language} (or several such languages)}% 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. So here's my proposal \termdefinition{OMS} {collection of expressions (like \termref{non-logical symbols}, \termref{sentences} and \termref{structuring} elements) in a given \termref{OMS language} (or several such languages).} \termdefinition{focused OMS} {\termref{OMS} that has a single resulting \termref{logical theory}.} \termdefinition{structured OMS} {\termref{OMS} that results from other \termref{OMS} by \termref{import}, \termref{union}, \termref{combination}, \termref{renaming} or other structuring operations} \begin{note} An OMS is either a basic or structured OMS. \end{note} 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". 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? Tara -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Thu Sep 11 20:35:58 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:35:58 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <5411A86B.1040904@gmail.com> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541083AA.3070704@gmail.com> <5410A7E0.40902@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5411A86B.1040904@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5411EB8E.30906@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> good point. I will introduce a corresponding syntactic category. Best, Till Am 11.09.2014 15:49 schrieb Tara Athan: > The syntax does not show a category for flattenable OMS. Are there DOL > assertions where the flattenable property is required? > > If so, then it would not be too difficult to create a syntactic > category for flattenable OMS, where only the mappings that propagate > flattenability are allowed in components. > > If not, then I don't understand why this property is needed in the DOL > spec. > > Tara > > > On 9/10/14 3:34 PM, Till Mossakowski wrote: >> \termdefinition{flattenable OMS} >> {OMS that can be seen, by purely syntactical means, to be logically >> equivalent to a basic OMS} >> \begin{note} >> More precisely, an OMS is flattenable if and only if it is either a >> basic OMS or it is an \termref{extension}, \termref{union}, >> translation, \termref{module extraction}, \termref{approximation}, >> \termref{filtering}, or reference of named OMS involving only >> flattenable OMS. >> \end{note} > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: > https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org From sowa at bestweb.net Fri Sep 12 17:37:29 2014 From: sowa at bestweb.net (John F Sowa) Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 11:37:29 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <54131339.6050502@bestweb.net> Till, I have been tied up with too many simultaneous tasks to call in for most of the Ontoiop telecons, but I have been following the summaries and slides. Your slides dated 2014-09=09 present a good overview, but I had some comments: 1. I believe that the discussion can be clarified by using the terms 'generalization' and 'specialization'. 2. Approximation in slide 7 is defined as "model in an expressive language, reason fast in a lightweight one." That's a good way to make the point. But it means that the lightweight version is a generalization (is implied by) the more expressive version. 3. Generalization/specialization are the two most widely used metalevel relations among theories. In Cyc, for example, they are the basis for the partial ordering of microtheories. As another example, Schema.org is a very general (highly underspecified) collection of types (or classes) that many developers have specialized for applications that are inconsistent in the details not specified by Schema.org. 4. In slide 3, I agree that diversity and interoperability occur at all levels. But they don't require all systems that interoperate to be consistent with each other in all their details. If you introduce the term 'generalization', you can say a) If two theories A and B are inconsistent in their details, they can interoperate on shared data that is specified by a common generalization C. b) To use data specified in C, neither A nor B may assume any properties of that data not specified in C. But they can use the details in conditionals that begin "If x has property p..." c) Points 4a and 4b are implicit in the way interoperable systems work, and the developers who use Schema.org and similar systems can understand them. 5. Slide 75: "What is a suitable abstract meta framework for non-monotonic logics and rule languages like RIF and RuleML?" There's a lot of research that shows the relationships between nonmon logics and belief (or theory) revision. In general, every proof in a non-monotonic logic can be converted to a proof in a monotonic logic from a suitably revised theory -- i.e., each nonmon step adds, deletes, or replaces some monotonic axiom. In terms of generalization/specialization, every nonmon proof corresponds to a walk in a lattice of theories. (The full lattice may be infinite, but there is no need to generate all the nodes.) I have found that the terms 'generalization' and 'specialization' can be explained to a wide audience of developers whose knowledge of logic is rudimentary at best. That's important for the OMG. John From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Fri Sep 19 16:20:41 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:20:41 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OMS: Structured focused basic distributed query In-Reply-To: <5411BC39.1010203@gmail.com> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5411BC39.1010203@gmail.com> Message-ID: <541C3BB9.9010004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear Tara, Am 11.09.2014 17:14, schrieb Tara Athan: > * I am confused about the term "structured OMS". The glossary > definition of structured OMS is > > \termdefinition{structured OMS\synonym focused OMS} > {\termref{OMS} that results from other \termref{OMS} by > \termref{import}, \termref{union}, \termref{combination}, > \termref{renaming} or other structuring operations} > \begin{note} > The term ``focused OMS'' emphasizes the fact that the OMS, while possibly > involving many OMS as parts, has a single resulting \termref{logical > theory}. > This is in contrast to \termref{distributed OMS}, which do not have > such a unique result, but rather comprise a network of OMS and > \termref{mappings}. See \cite{MossakowskiTarlecki09}. > \end{note} > > As I read this, a basic OMS cannot be structured OMS - it is not the > result of a structuring operation applied to another OMS. > > 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. > > 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. > OK, agreed. > * If the term "distributed OMS" is replaced by "OMS network", then the > question arises as to what OMS are not focused. I would keep "distributed OMS" as a synonym for "OMS network". > > The current definition of OMS is > > {set of expressions (like \termref{non-logical symbols}, > \termref{sentences} and \termref{structuring} elements) in a given > \termref{OMS language} (or several such languages)}% > > 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. > > So here's my proposal > > \termdefinition{OMS} > {collection of expressions (like \termref{non-logical symbols}, > \termref{sentences} and \termref{structuring} elements) in a given > \termref{OMS language} (or several such languages).} > > \termdefinition{focused OMS} > {\termref{OMS} that has a single resulting \termref{logical theory}.} > > \termdefinition{structured OMS} > {\termref{OMS} that results from other \termref{OMS} by > \termref{import}, \termref{union}, \termref{combination}, > \termref{renaming} or other structuring operations} > \begin{note} > An OMS is either a basic or structured OMS. > \end{note} agreed, except that I prefer to say "A *focused* OMS is either a basic or structured OMS." > 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". > > 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? currently, queries are part of OMS networks (= distributed OMS). I cannot see why they should become part of structured OMS. How would they then affect the model class of the structuted OMS? Best, Till > Tara > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Fri Sep 19 16:58:21 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:58:21 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <5411EB8E.30906@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541083AA.3070704@gmail.com> <5410A7E0.40902@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5411A86B.1040904@gmail.com> <5411EB8E.30906@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <541C448D.5050806@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear Tara, unfortunately, it would lead to rather clumsy syntax if we introduced a synactic category for flattenable OMS. This is because a structured OMS can be a combination, which involves a graph, which in turn may involve interpretations and alignments between OMS. This means that we would need to have a flattenable and an elusive version of all these things. This would make the syntax overly complicated (for human beings - not for a parser). That said, let me add that detecting whether an OMS is flattenable or elusive is a very easy operation on the abstract syntax. All the best, Till Am 11.09.2014 20:35, schrieb Till Mossakowski: > good point. I will introduce a corresponding syntactic category. > > Best, Till > > Am 11.09.2014 15:49 schrieb Tara Athan: >> The syntax does not show a category for flattenable OMS. Are there DOL >> assertions where the flattenable property is required? >> >> If so, then it would not be too difficult to create a syntactic >> category for flattenable OMS, where only the mappings that propagate >> flattenability are allowed in components. >> >> If not, then I don't understand why this property is needed in the DOL >> spec. >> >> Tara >> >> >> On 9/10/14 3:34 PM, Till Mossakowski wrote: >>> \termdefinition{flattenable OMS} >>> {OMS that can be seen, by purely syntactical means, to be logically >>> equivalent to a basic OMS} >>> \begin{note} >>> More precisely, an OMS is flattenable if and only if it is either a >>> basic OMS or it is an \termref{extension}, \termref{union}, >>> translation, \termref{module extraction}, \termref{approximation}, >>> \termref{filtering}, or reference of named OMS involving only >>> flattenable OMS. >>> \end{note} >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de >> Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum >> Config/Unsubscribe: >> https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum >> Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ >> Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Fri Sep 19 18:13:46 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 18:13:46 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <54131339.6050502@bestweb.net> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <54131339.6050502@bestweb.net> Message-ID: <541C563A.5070700@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> John, Am 12.09.2014 17:37, schrieb John F Sowa: > Till, > > I have been tied up with too many simultaneous tasks to call in for > most of the Ontoiop telecons, but I have been following the summaries > and slides. Your slides dated 2014-09=09 present a good overview, > but I had some comments: > 1. I believe that the discussion can be clarified by using the terms > 'generalization' and 'specialization'. > > 2. Approximation in slide 7 is defined as "model in an expressive > language, reason fast in a lightweight one." That's a good way > to make the point. But it means that the lightweight version > is a generalization (is implied by) the more expressive version. > agreed. I would call it "logical consequence"... > 3. Generalization/specialization are the two most widely used > metalevel relations among theories. In Cyc, for example, > they are the basis for the partial ordering of microtheories. > As another example, Schema.org is a very general (highly > underspecified) collection of types (or classes) that many > developers have specialized for applications that are > inconsistent in the details not specified by Schema.org. > so Cyc also uses the terms generalization and specialisation? > 4. In slide 3, I agree that diversity and interoperability occur at > all levels. But they don't require all systems that interoperate > to be consistent with each other in all their details. If you > introduce the term 'generalization', you can say > > a) If two theories A and B are inconsistent in their details, > they can interoperate on shared data that is specified by > a common generalization C. > > b) To use data specified in C, neither A nor B may assume any > properties of that data not specified in C. But they can use > the details in conditionals that begin "If x has property p..." > > c) Points 4a and 4b are implicit in the way interoperable systems > work, and the developers who use Schema.org and similar systems > can understand them. > > 5. Slide 75: "What is a suitable abstract meta framework for > non-monotonic logics and rule languages like RIF and RuleML?" > > There's a lot of research that shows the relationships between > nonmon logics and belief (or theory) revision. In general, > every proof in a non-monotonic logic can be converted to a proof > in a monotonic logic from a suitably revised theory -- i.e., each > nonmon step adds, deletes, or replaces some monotonic axiom. > In terms of generalization/specialization, every nonmon proof > corresponds to a walk in a lattice of theories. (The full lattice > may be infinite, but there is no need to generate all the nodes.) Yes, but the important point is that languages like RIF specify in detail how this walk looks. And then the question is how to abstract these specifications of such walks to a general notion of nonmonotonic logic. > > I have found that the terms 'generalization' and 'specialization' can > be explained to a wide audience of developers whose knowledge of logic > is rudimentary at best. That's important for the OMG. > Best, Till > John > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: > https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org From taraathan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 18:14:54 2014 From: taraathan at gmail.com (Tara Athan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:14:54 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <541C448D.5050806@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541083AA.3070704@gmail.com> <5410A7E0.40902@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5411A86B.1040904@gmail.com> <5411EB8E.30906@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541C448D.5050806@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <541C567E.7030202@gmail.com> Till - does this mean that there are certain expressions that would satisfy the DOL EBNF grammar, but produce an error because an elusive OMS is an argument of an operation that requires a flattenable OMS? If that is the case, then I think it would be worth adding some minor complications to the grammar (not the syntax) in order to restrict the language in order to eliminate such errors. But in looking over the slides, I am not convinced this is the case. For example, the slides say that "union" is flattenable, but I believe that means that a union of flattenable components is flattenable. It is not stated that it is not possible to form a union where some components are elusive. Am I reading this correctly? Tara On 9/19/14 10:58 AM, Till Mossakowski wrote: > Dear Tara, > > unfortunately, it would lead to rather clumsy syntax if we introduced a > synactic category for flattenable OMS. This is because a structured OMS > can be a combination, which involves a graph, which in turn may involve > interpretations and alignments between OMS. This means that we would > need to have a flattenable and an elusive version of all these things. > This would make the syntax overly complicated (for human beings - not > for a parser). > That said, let me add that detecting whether an OMS is flattenable or > elusive is a very easy operation on the abstract syntax. > > All the best, > Till > > Am 11.09.2014 20:35, schrieb Till Mossakowski: >> good point. I will introduce a corresponding syntactic category. >> >> Best, Till >> >> Am 11.09.2014 15:49 schrieb Tara Athan: >>> The syntax does not show a category for flattenable OMS. Are there DOL >>> assertions where the flattenable property is required? >>> >>> If so, then it would not be too difficult to create a syntactic >>> category for flattenable OMS, where only the mappings that propagate >>> flattenability are allowed in components. >>> >>> If not, then I don't understand why this property is needed in the DOL >>> spec. >>> >>> Tara >>> >>> >>> On 9/10/14 3:34 PM, Till Mossakowski wrote: >>>> \termdefinition{flattenable OMS} >>>> {OMS that can be seen, by purely syntactical means, to be logically >>>> equivalent to a basic OMS} >>>> \begin{note} >>>> More precisely, an OMS is flattenable if and only if it is either a >>>> basic OMS or it is an \termref{extension}, \termref{union}, >>>> translation, \termref{module extraction}, \termref{approximation}, >>>> \termref{filtering}, or reference of named OMS involving only >>>> flattenable OMS. >>>> \end{note} >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de >>> Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum >>> Config/Unsubscribe: >>> https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum >>> Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ >>> Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org > From taraathan at gmail.com Fri Sep 19 18:36:04 2014 From: taraathan at gmail.com (Tara Athan) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 12:36:04 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OMS: Structured focused basic distributed query In-Reply-To: <541C3BB9.9010004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5411BC39.1010203@gmail.com> <541C3BB9.9010004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <541C5B74.4020308@gmail.com> On 9/19/14 10:20 AM, Till Mossakowski wrote: > Dear Tara, > > Am 11.09.2014 17:14, schrieb Tara Athan: >> * I am confused about the term "structured OMS". The glossary >> definition of structured OMS is >> >> \termdefinition{structured OMS\synonym focused OMS} >> {\termref{OMS} that results from other \termref{OMS} by >> \termref{import}, \termref{union}, \termref{combination}, >> \termref{renaming} or other structuring operations} >> \begin{note} >> The term ``focused OMS'' emphasizes the fact that the OMS, while possibly >> involving many OMS as parts, has a single resulting \termref{logical >> theory}. >> This is in contrast to \termref{distributed OMS}, which do not have >> such a unique result, but rather comprise a network of OMS and >> \termref{mappings}. See \cite{MossakowskiTarlecki09}. >> \end{note} >> >> As I read this, a basic OMS cannot be structured OMS - it is not the >> result of a structuring operation applied to another OMS. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> > OK, agreed. > >> * If the term "distributed OMS" is replaced by "OMS network", then >> the question arises as to what OMS are not focused. > I would keep "distributed OMS" as a synonym for "OMS network". >> >> The current definition of OMS is >> >> {set of expressions (like \termref{non-logical symbols}, >> \termref{sentences} and \termref{structuring} elements) in a given >> \termref{OMS language} (or several such languages)}% >> >> 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. >> >> So here's my proposal >> >> \termdefinition{OMS} >> {collection of expressions (like \termref{non-logical symbols}, >> \termref{sentences} and \termref{structuring} elements) in a given >> \termref{OMS language} (or several such languages).} >> >> \termdefinition{focused OMS} >> {\termref{OMS} that has a single resulting \termref{logical theory}.} >> >> \termdefinition{structured OMS} >> {\termref{OMS} that results from other \termref{OMS} by >> \termref{import}, \termref{union}, \termref{combination}, >> \termref{renaming} or other structuring operations} >> \begin{note} >> An OMS is either a basic or structured OMS. >> \end{note} > agreed, except that I prefer to say "A *focused* OMS is either a basic > or structured OMS." >> 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". >> >> 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? > > currently, queries are part of OMS networks (= distributed OMS). > I cannot see why they should become part of structured OMS. How would > they then affect the model class of the structuted OMS? This comes back to what is the defining concept for the term "structured OMS". The name suggests it is simply an OMS with structure (whatever that means). There is, I imagine, some category-theoretical way to distinguish a structure from a network. Given that we are now allowing OMS which are simply queries, then it seems reasonable to me that there could also be queries with structure, or hybrid assertion-query OMS with structure. Here are some use cases, where the relationship between the components seem to me to be tighter than what I would expect in an 'OMS network': 1. It is not uncommon to have a set of queries. For example if a query language does not support disjunction, then this may be emulated by applying two queries and taking the 'union' of the results. 2. In certain query languages, query results can depend on the order of application, so a sequence of queries is a relevant construct. 3. Translation between query languages is a reasonable operation to support. 4. I can certainly imagine forming a combination query using multiple query languages, dependent on a translation between the query languages. 5. Query rewriting is a technique developed in the database world that may be relevant for querying structured OMS, and, somewhat out of scope for OntoIOp, is important for supporting OBDA. 6. There are a number of languages, especially in the LP realm, that allow assertions (and other performatives that modify the theory, such as retractions) to be interlaced with queries. Tara > > Best, Till > >> Tara >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> To Post:mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de >> Message Archives:https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum >> Config/Unsubscribe:https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum >> Community Files (open):http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ >> Community Wiki:http://ontoiop.org > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sowa at bestweb.net Sat Sep 20 07:57:53 2014 From: sowa at bestweb.net (John F Sowa) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 01:57:53 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <541C563A.5070700@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <54131339.6050502@bestweb.net> <541C563A.5070700@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <541D1761.9020807@bestweb.net> Till, Just a couple of comments: > so Cyc also uses the terms generalization and specialisation? No, but those terms cover Cyc as well as many other systems. JFS From sowa at bestweb.net Sat Sep 20 08:20:25 2014 From: sowa at bestweb.net (John F Sowa) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 02:20:25 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <541C563A.5070700@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <54131339.6050502@bestweb.net> <541C563A.5070700@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <541D1CA9.5010301@bestweb.net> Till, A few comments: > so Cyc also uses the terms generalization and specialisation? No, but those terms cover Cyc as well as many other systems. JFS >> every nonmon proof corresponds to a walk in a lattice of theories. TM > Yes, but the important point is that languages like RIF specify in > detail how this walk looks. And then the question is how to abstract > these specifications of such walks to a general notion of nonmonotonic > logic. I agree. The methods of nonmon logic -- especially NAF -- are very useful methods of inference. Anything useful is worth keeping. But every version of nonmon logic has a different kind of semantics for justifying its proofs. The advantage of the lattice of theories is that it provides a single framework for interpreting both classical and nonmonotonic inference rules. A classical proof starts at a single node in the lattice of theories, and it stays at that node throughout the proof. A nonmonotonic proof takes a walk through the lattice from one classical theory to another. The final theory is purely classical, and the axioms of that theory are sufficient to carry out the proof by purely classical methods. I'm not suggesting that we get rid of the nonmon inference rules. But what I am suggesting is that we interpret those rules as guides for a walk through a lattice of purely classical theories. The advantage of this method is that we only need one model theory for specifying the semantics of both classical and nonmonotonic logics. John From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Sat Sep 20 17:22:38 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 17:22:38 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10 In-Reply-To: <541D1CA9.5010301@bestweb.net> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5410688E.2060004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <54131339.6050502@bestweb.net> <541C563A.5070700@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541D1CA9.5010301@bestweb.net> Message-ID: <541D9BBE.1080500@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> John, Am 20.09.2014 08:20, schrieb John F Sowa: > > I'm not suggesting that we get rid of the nonmon inference rules. > But what I am suggesting is that we interpret those rules as > guides for a walk through a lattice of purely classical theories. > > The advantage of this method is that we only need one model theory > for specifying the semantics of both classical and nonmonotonic logics. Is there an existing work about how different nonmonotonic systems would lead to different "guides for a walk"? And what would such a "guide for a walk" be if we want to formalize it? Best, Till From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Tue Sep 23 13:54:49 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:54:49 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.64): Wed 2014.09.24 Message-ID: <54215F89.6070706@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear all, our next OntoIOp team conference call (n.64) is coming up this Wednesday, Sept-24. The topics are: - chapter 9 of the document (abstract syntax), cont'd. In particular, I suggest to discuss 9.2 and ednote 62 in connection with 4.1 - chapter 10 of the document (concrete syntax) - report from OMG meeting The document (revised according to the latest discussions) is attached. All the best, Till = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.64) - Wed 2014.09.24 = < * Date: Wed 24-Sept-2014 * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 pm EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST / 5:00pm SAST / 0:00am [+1] KST / 15:00 UTC ** ref. world clock - http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=9&day=24&year=2014&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. * shared-file workspace: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-09-24_team-confcall_n.64/ * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140924 Remarks: * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of their participation at the session. * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute Dial-in: * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# * Skype: "join.conference" ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your phone, skype-out or google-voice and call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) Talk to you all then! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ebnf-OMG_OntoIOp_current.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1119916 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Tue Sep 23 14:09:27 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:09:27 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OMS: Structured focused basic distributed query In-Reply-To: <541C5B74.4020308@gmail.com> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5411BC39.1010203@gmail.com> <541C3BB9.9010004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541C5B74.4020308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <542162F7.7030905@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Dear Tara, >> currently, queries are part of OMS networks (= distributed OMS). >> I cannot see why they should become part of structured OMS. How would >> they then affect the model class of the structuted OMS? > This comes back to what is the defining concept for the term > "structured OMS". The name suggests it is simply an OMS with > structure (whatever that means). There is, I imagine, some > category-theoretical way to distinguish a structure from a network. > agreed. > Given that we are now allowing OMS which are simply queries, then it > seems reasonable to me that there could also be queries with > structure, or hybrid assertion-query OMS with structure. > > Here are some use cases, where the relationship between the components > seem to me to be tighter than what I would expect in an 'OMS network': > 1. It is not uncommon to have a set of queries. > For example if a query language does not support disjunction, then > this may be emulated by applying two queries and taking the 'union' of > the results. > > 2. In certain query languages, query results can depend on the order > of application, so a sequence of queries is a relevant construct. > > 3. Translation between query languages is a reasonable operation to > support. > > 4. I can certainly imagine forming a combination query using multiple > query languages, dependent on a translation between the query languages. > > 5. Query rewriting is a technique developed in the database world that > may be relevant for querying structured OMS, and, somewhat out of > scope for OntoIOp, is important for supporting OBDA. > > 6. There are a number of languages, especially in the LP realm, that > allow assertions (and other performatives that modify the theory, such > as retractions) to be interlaced with queries. > OK, but all these (probably except 3.) are structuring operations that are different from structuring operations for OMS. It seems to me that we need a seperate structuring language here... Best, Till From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Wed Sep 24 17:09:36 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 17:09:36 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.64): Wed 2014.09.24 In-Reply-To: <54215F89.6070706@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <54215F89.6070706@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <5422DEB0.80107@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> attached some (slightly revised) slides. Best, Till Am 23.09.2014 13:54, schrieb Till Mossakowski: > Dear all, > > our next OntoIOp team conference call (n.64) is coming up this > Wednesday, Sept-24. > > The topics are: > - chapter 9 of the document (abstract syntax), cont'd. In particular, I > suggest to discuss 9.2 and ednote 62 in connection with 4.1 > - chapter 10 of the document (concrete syntax) > - report from OMG meeting > > The document (revised according to the latest discussions) is attached. > > All the best, > Till > > > = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.64) - Wed 2014.09.24 = > < > * Date: Wed 24-Sept-2014 > * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 pm EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST / > 5:00pm SAST / 0:00am [+1] KST / 15:00 UTC > ** ref. world clock - > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=9&day=24&year=2014&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 > * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. > * shared-file workspace: > http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-09-24_team-confcall_n.64/ > * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140924 > > > Remarks: > > * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless > otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of > their participation at the session. > > * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) > - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute > > Dial-in: > * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > * Skype: "join.conference" > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding > up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your > phone, skype-out or google-voice and > call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 > ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# > ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & > UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ > ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be > under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" > ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the > call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) > > > Talk to you all then! > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2014-09-24-DOL-overview.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1073796 bytes Desc: not available URL: From math.semantic.web at gmail.com Wed Sep 24 18:11:29 2014 From: math.semantic.web at gmail.com (Christoph LANGE) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:11:29 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Example for locally scoped prefix bindings Message-ID: <5422ED31.9000003@gmail.com> in the attached PDF, from slide 12 The first prefix map is scoped to the "distributed-ontology" (i.e. "ontology library"). The 2nd and 3rd ones are scoped to the "ontology" (i.e. basic OMS) -- Christoph Lange, Enterprise Information Systems Department Applied Computer Science @ University of Bonn; Fraunhofer IAIS http://langec.wordpress.com/about, Skype duke4701 ? SEMANTiCS conference: Transfer?Engineering?Community. Leipzig, Germany, 4?5 September (workshops 1?3 September). Including Vocabulary Carnival, LOD for SMEs, Linked Data Quality. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2012-04-18-meeting.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 184148 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de Wed Sep 24 18:59:52 2014 From: mossakow at iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de (Till Mossakowski) Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 18:59:52 +0200 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] ontoiop_20140924: Chat Transcript - sent by: TillMossakowski Message-ID: <5422F888.7090706@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> *Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20140924* *2014-09-24 GMT-08:00* *[07:43] **TerryLongstreth: *In a hotel room, working on getting an audio connection... *[08:05] *anonymous morphed into ChristophLange *[08:06] **ChristophLange: *Hi, I'm back to OntoIOp, but unfortunately didn't have time to prepare anything, nor to catch up with previous things. If there is anything related to syntax or IRIs where my advice would have been helpful, I'm happy to help though *[08:14] **TillMossakowski: *Till presenting slightly revised slides *[08:14] **TillMossakowski: *slide 12 *[08:17] **TillMossakowski: *physical distribution of OMS is entirely orthogonal to the distinction made here (focused OMS, distributed OMS=OMS networks, OMS libraries). Actually, even focused OMS can be physically distribtued, while distributed OMS can be physically non-distributed. *[08:18] **ChristophLange: *@TaraAthan: BTW in parallel to this call I'm reviewing the minutes of the last one (when I was on holiday). I'll be happy to resolve any LoLa-related issues via the mailing list or personal email. *[08:19] **TillMossakowski: *The top-level definitions in OMS libraries are similar to titlings in Common Logic documents. *[08:19] **ChristophLange: *I see that the terminology has changed, so I/we may need to re-apply some of these changes in LoLa *[08:19] **ChristophLange: *We can do so via https://github.com/ontohub/OOR_Ontohub_API/issues. End of "LoLa diversion" :-) *[08:20] **TillMossakowski: *Common Logic documents can mix titlings with other assertions. *[08:22] **TillMossakowski: *in many logics (indeed, nearly all logics except Common Logic), titling maps and models are kept seperate. Therefore, we do the same in DOL. *[08:25] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: DOL should be able to support Common Logic without nesting of titlings. *[08:27] **TillMossakowski: *Since we do not have our hand at the models (they could be models in any logic), we cannot assume that models include titling maps. *[08:31] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: it seems that only Common Logic without titling and imports would be conformant to DOL. The DOL library mechanism needs to be used for titling - otherwise, DOL and CL are just incompatible. *[08:35] **TerryLongstreth: *The foregoing discussion presupposes that Common Logic V2 will become the current draft version, and that implicitly, that version of CL will be incompatible with the current draft of OntoIop *[08:36] **TerryLongstreth: *So, do we need a harmonization session? *[08:38] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: it could be useful that libraries have a (hierarchical) structure *[08:39] **TillMossakowski: *However, libraries define OMS, and thereby assign them URIs. So you can reference the OMS by their URIs, and do not need to include the library. *[08:41] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: hierarchical libraries could be useful for nested scoping and for searching. *[08:42] **TillMossakowski: *A useful addition to DOL could be an include statement for libraries. *[08:43] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: there could be the need for annotating the include statement (e.g. with date, or other metadata) *[08:45] **TillMossakowski: *Sn include statement would import the whole library. Note that still, the individual OMS would be referenced by their URLs. *[08:45] **TillMossakowski: *Also, prefix maps would be imported. *[08:46] **TillMossakowski: *In a library, the individual OMS should have URIs that are derived from the URI of the library and a local name (relative URI) of the OMS. *[08:48] **TillMossakowski: *At least, OntoIOp adopts this principle. *[08:49] **TillMossakowski: *DOL should not adopt this principle (there may be libraries of OMS with very different URIs). *[08:50] **TillMossakowski: *But DOL should make it possible to adopt this principle, via relative IRIs, or CURIEs. *[08:51] **TillMossakowski: *If you define the emtpy prefix to be the IRI of the library, then local names would just be appended to that IRI, by the CURIE mechanism. *[08:52] **TillMossakowski: *This could be a default behaviour. *[08:54] **TillMossakowski: *In RDF turtle syntax, such CURIEs start with a colon, in OWL Manchester syntax, they don't (and that is also the choice that we have made in DOL). *[08:59] **TillMossakowski: *A problem is that symbols in an OMS always need to be referenced with oms_name/sym_name, because their IRI also includes the OMS name. *[09:00] **TerryLongstreth: *I have to leave. Got another meeting. Will try to spend some time with Ch. 9. *[09:00] **TillMossakowski: *If we do not want this, we would have to adopt MMT IRIs, which allow for referencing symbol in their ontologies, and ontologies in their libraries. *[09:01] **ChristophLange: *CURIEs (part of RDFa 1.1): http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#s_curies *[09:01] **ChristophLange: *OWL Manchester example: http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/#Quick_Reference *[09:02] **TaraAthan: *We should carefully distinguish between empty prefix (e.g. :abc) and no prefix (e.g. abc) *[09:03] **TillMossakowski: *MMT: https://svn.kwarc.info/repos/MMT/doc/html/index.html paper about MMT: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540113000631 or (open-access but a bit outdated) http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.0548 *[09:03] **ChristophLange: *CURIE calls :sym "default prefix", and sym "no prefix" *[09:09] **TaraAthan: *http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/ says that it is possible to define a default prefix (through @vocab) to be applied to "undefined names", which I believe are no prefix names. *[09:15] **TillMossakowski: *We suggest to let the no-prefix default to a context-sensitive expansion mechanism, which always prepends the library IRI (in the context of a structured OMS where named OMS a referenced) resp. the current OMS IRI (in the context of a basic OMS). *[09:18] **TillMossakowski: *what would be the prepended IRIs exactly? *[09:19] **TillMossakowski: *in MMT, they use library_name?OMS_name?symbol_name *[09:19] **TillMossakowski: *we cannot use library_name#OMS_name#symbol_name *[09:20] **TillMossakowski: *because only one # can be used for the fragment (in this case, the fragment would be OMS_name#symbol_name) *[09:21] **TillMossakowski: *the main problem with the fragment (#) is that one needs to download the whole library, which can be inefficient *[09:22] **TillMossakowski: *one option would be library_name/OMS_name?sym=symbol_name *[09:24] **TillMossakowski: *the problem is that this only works for newly created DOL ontologies, not for existing ontologies *[09:24] **ChristophLange: *curl -sH 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' -L 'http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person' (you see the problem: although you have selected only one symbol, the whole document is downloaded) *[09:24] **TillMossakowski: *Existing ontologies use library_name/OMS_name#symbol_name or library_name/OMS_name/symbol_name *[09:26] **TillMossakowski: *or better: OMS_name#symbol_name or OMS_name/symbol_name *[09:26] **TillMossakowski: *in MMT: OMS_name?symbol_name *[09:27] **TillMossakowski: *we do not want to encourage URNs, because we want to encourage a linked-data style, which is incomatible with URNs *[09:28] **TillMossakowski: *that said, we do not want to forbid URNs *[09:33] **TillMossakowski: *we suggest that the user can specify the separator, and it defaults to # *[09:34] **TillMossakowski: *more precisely, we need a library-OMS separator (defaulting to /) and an OMS-symbol separator (defaulting to #). *[09:36] **TillMossakowski: *Tara: it is quite common that an the IRI of an OWL ontology ends with a # *[09:37] **TillMossakowski: *in this case, the user could let the second separator be the empty string *[09:39] **TillMossakowski: *this means that separators can be arbitrary strings *[09:41] **TillMossakowski: *the problem with # is that the http server only gets the OMS IRI, while the http client has to interpret the # *[09:45] **TillMossakowski: *so we suggest to let both separators default to / (even if this causes certain ambiguitites, because / is now 1. a separator between folders in the library IRI, 2. a separator between library IRI and OMS name, and 3. a separator between OMS name and symbol name. However, this can be disambiguated dynamically) *[09:46] *List of attendees: ChristophLange, TaraAthan, TerryLongstreth, TillMossakowski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From taraathan at gmail.com Thu Sep 25 16:30:46 2014 From: taraathan at gmail.com (Tara Athan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:30:46 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.64): Wed 2014.09.24 In-Reply-To: <5422DEB0.80107@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <54215F89.6070706@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5422DEB0.80107@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <54242716.8000005@gmail.com> Till and all - I am wondering what the extension mechansim will be for DOL. This comes to mind because of the seeming incompatibilities with CL2 titling and importation that we discussed in the last telecon. I believe that at least some of the extraordinary features of CL2 could be described in a logic-independent fashion, as required for inclusion in the DOL framework. However, the theory needs to be developed first, and it will likely not happen before the first version of DOL is released. A work-around would be to have a mechanism for introducing "user-defined" operations, kinds of mappings, etc. into DOL. Since you are using CURIES in your syntax, one approach might be to have a generic operation, where the type of operation is defined by reference to an external IRI through a CURIE. Same for mappings and other syntactic categories. Tara On 9/24/14 11:09 AM, Till Mossakowski wrote: > attached some (slightly revised) slides. > > Best, Till > > Am 23.09.2014 13:54, schrieb Till Mossakowski: >> Dear all, >> >> our next OntoIOp team conference call (n.64) is coming up this >> Wednesday, Sept-24. >> >> The topics are: >> - chapter 9 of the document (abstract syntax), cont'd. In particular, I >> suggest to discuss 9.2 and ednote 62 in connection with 4.1 >> - chapter 10 of the document (concrete syntax) >> - report from OMG meeting >> >> The document (revised according to the latest discussions) is attached. >> >> All the best, >> Till >> >> >> = OntoIOp team-confcall (n.64) - Wed 2014.09.24 = >> < >> * Date: Wed 24-Sept-2014 >> * start-time: 8:00am PDT / 11:00 pm EDT / 4:00pm BST / 5:00pm CEST / >> 5:00pm SAST / 0:00am [+1] KST / 15:00 UTC >> ** ref. world clock - >> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=9&day=24&year=2014&hour=8&min=0&sec=0&p1=224 >> * Duration: 1~1.5 Hrs. >> * shared-file workspace: >> http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Team_confcall/2014-09-24_team-confcall_n.64/ >> * chat-workspace: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/ontoiop_20140924 >> >> >> Remarks: >> >> * the session may be recorded for archival purposes. Unless >> otherwise documented, participants agrees to this by virtue of >> their participation at the session. >> >> * In case we have to mute everyone (due to extraneous noise or echo) >> - Mute control: *7 to un-mute ... *6 to mute >> >> Dial-in: >> * Phone (US): +1 (206) 402-0100 >> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >> * Skype: "join.conference" >> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >> ** in case your skype connection to "joinconference" is not holding >> up, try using (your favorite POTS or VoIP line, etc.) either your >> phone, skype-out or google-voice and >> call the US dial-in number: +1 (425) 440-5100 >> ... when prompted enter Conference ID: 843758# >> ** some local numbers may be available (in the US, Australia, Canada & >> UK) - see: http://instantteleseminar.com/Local/ >> ** for Windows Skype users: Can't find Skype Dial pad? ... it may be >> under the "Call" dropdown menu as "Show Dial pad" >> ** for Linux Skype users: if the dialpad button is not shown in the >> call window you need to press the "d" hotkey to enable it. (--CLange) >> >> >> Talk to you all then! >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From taraathan at gmail.com Fri Sep 26 00:14:18 2014 From: taraathan at gmail.com (Tara Athan) Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 18:14:18 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] OMS: Structured focused basic distributed query In-Reply-To: <542162F7.7030905@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <540F6CB2.5090506@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <5411BC39.1010203@gmail.com> <541C3BB9.9010004@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> <541C5B74.4020308@gmail.com> <542162F7.7030905@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <542493BA.206@gmail.com> On 9/23/14 8:09 AM, Till Mossakowski wrote: > Dear Tara, > >>> currently, queries are part of OMS networks (= distributed OMS). >>> I cannot see why they should become part of structured OMS. How would >>> they then affect the model class of the structuted OMS? >> This comes back to what is the defining concept for the term >> "structured OMS". The name suggests it is simply an OMS with >> structure (whatever that means). There is, I imagine, some >> category-theoretical way to distinguish a structure from a network. >> > agreed. >> Given that we are now allowing OMS which are simply queries, then it >> seems reasonable to me that there could also be queries with >> structure, or hybrid assertion-query OMS with structure. >> >> Here are some use cases, where the relationship between the components >> seem to me to be tighter than what I would expect in an 'OMS network': >> 1. It is not uncommon to have a set of queries. >> For example if a query language does not support disjunction, then >> this may be emulated by applying two queries and taking the 'union' of >> the results. >> >> 2. In certain query languages, query results can depend on the order >> of application, so a sequence of queries is a relevant construct. >> >> 3. Translation between query languages is a reasonable operation to >> support. >> >> 4. I can certainly imagine forming a combination query using multiple >> query languages, dependent on a translation between the query languages. >> >> 5. Query rewriting is a technique developed in the database world that >> may be relevant for querying structured OMS, and, somewhat out of >> scope for OntoIOp, is important for supporting OBDA. >> >> 6. There are a number of languages, especially in the LP realm, that >> allow assertions (and other performatives that modify the theory, such >> as retractions) to be interlaced with queries. >> > OK, but all these (probably except 3.) are structuring operations that > are different from structuring operations for OMS. It seems to me that > we need a seperate structuring language here... That makes sense. My feeling is that it is not a good idea to mix queries and query results into the concept called "OMS". A query is not an ontology, a model nor a specification. Tara > > Best, Till > > > _________________________________________________________________ > To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de > Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum > Config/Unsubscribe: https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum > Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/ > Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org > From sowa at bestweb.net Sat Sep 27 18:32:16 2014 From: sowa at bestweb.net (John F Sowa) Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:32:16 -0400 Subject: [ontoiop-forum] Incompatibilities between DOL and titling in CL In-Reply-To: <5422F888.7090706@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> References: <5422F888.7090706@iws.cs.uni-magdeburg.de> Message-ID: <5426E690.7010403@bestweb.net> Till, Tara, Terry, et al., I had a pressing deadline to meet, which did not allow me to call in. But this transcript is significant. I added a cc to the CL list. > Chat transcript from room: ontoiop_20140924 > ... > [08:31] TillMossakowski: Tara: it seems that only Common Logic > without titling and imports would be conformant to DOL. The DOL library > mechanism needs to be used for titling - otherwise, DOL and CL are just > incompatible. > > [08:35] TerryLongstreth: The foregoing discussion presupposes that > Common Logic V2 will become the current draft version, and that > implicitly, that version of CL will be incompatible with the current > draft of OntoIop > > [08:36] TerryLongstreth: So, do we need a harmonization session? > > [08:38] TillMossakowski: Tara: it could be useful that libraries > have a (hierarchical) structure... I'm revising my previous specification for sorted logics as an annex to the current draft. But the mechanism for specifying sorts creates conflicts with the mechanisms for titling and the import statements that depend on them. I won't claim that they're completely inconsistent, but a mixture of the two would create a huge amount of complexity. Therefore, I am specifying sort structures (and families of compatible sort structures) only in terms of the single-universe subset of CL. I don't use titling, and I assume a simple import statement that is independent of any nesting. The same strategy could be adopted for DOL. A major change in the semantics of the current draft would make it impossible to meet the deadline of FCD by December. A simpler alternative would be a two-part specification in the Section 6: 1. Split the single universe subset of CL from the mechanism for titling and domain restrictions. Define a very simple import statement that does not depend on nesting. This section would be much simpler than the current draft. 2. In the next section or subsection, specify extensions to the core as an option defined on top of the core. The combination of the core plus extensions would be equivalent to the current draft. 3. The conformance section would allow conformant CL dialects to adopt either the core or the extended version. Implications: 1. No widely used logics have such a system of titling, importation, and domain restrictions. The core version would be easier to implement than the extended version. 2. Sorted logics, as I'm specifying in the annex or as anyone else has specified by other means, are easy to specify on top of the core. But two different mechanisms for restricting domains are hard to reconcile. Therefore, sorted logics would normally be defined on top of the core. 3. DOL would be compatible with logics specified in core CL or with sorted logics -- either those specified by the methods in the annex or by other methods that do not use the extensions to CL. 4. Till's point that libraries have a hierarchical structure is important. Instead of using nested importations into CL, a simpler approach would be to import a theory in the source dialect that has already combined all the desired components. Method #4 would probably be sufficient for most users. Applications that combine theories from multiple dialects could import each one at the top level, not at nested levels. In fact, it would be very risky to mix independently developed modules without a lot of testing. Anybody who does that testing would map them to the same dialect in order to do the tests. John