[ontoiop-forum] OMS: Structured focused basic distributed query

[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.

* 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: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20140911/a5eb7087/attachment.html>