[ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.63): Wed 2014.09.10

[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}