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

[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