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

[Tara Athan]

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
>