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

[Till Mossakowski]

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: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20140919/5ad097d3/attachment.html>