From fneuhaus at web.de  Wed Dec 20 14:18:20 2017
From: fneuhaus at web.de (Fabian Neuhaus)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:18:20 +0100
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL  finalisation
In-Reply-To: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
Message-ID: <FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>

Dear All, 

Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen in February 2018. 

Best 
Fabian  

From sellenwright at gmail.com  Wed Dec 20 15:13:43 2017
From: sellenwright at gmail.com (Sue Ellen Wright)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:13:43 +0000
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
Message-ID: <CA+fACne17TRgEfcm-05xQW9Efhw_c7K=peTYdkpOg6ipGfWfdQ@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations!

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 8:19 AM Fabian Neuhaus <fneuhaus at web.de> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last OMG
> Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes that we made
> to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our case lasted 2 years).
> Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on our way to the release of DOL
> 1.0. I expect that this will happen in February 2018.
>
> Best
> Fabian
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum at ovgu.de
> Message Archives: https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forum
> Config/Unsubscribe
> <https://listserv.ovgu.de//pipermail/ontoiop-forumConfig/Unsubscribe>:
> https://listserv.ovgu.de/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum
> Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
> Community Wiki: http://ontoiop.org
>
-- 
Sue Ellen Wright
Institute for Applied Linguistics
Kent State University
Kent OH 44242 USA
sellenwright at gmail.com

Terminology management: There is unfortunately no cure for terminology; you
can only hope to manage it. (Kelly Washbourne)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20171220/5a1979b4/attachment.html>

From sowa at bestweb.net  Wed Dec 20 16:01:34 2017
From: sowa at bestweb.net (John F Sowa)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:01:34 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
Message-ID: <d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>

Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.

 From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
> in February 2018.

And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).

Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
Ontolog Forum?

And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?

John
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dol.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 97384 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20171220/760a9b3a/attachment-0001.jpg>

From christian.galinski at chello.at  Wed Dec 20 17:33:28 2017
From: christian.galinski at chello.at (christian.galinski@chello.at christian.galinski@chello.at)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:33:28 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
Message-ID: <625346179.467779.1513787608367@upcmail.upc.at>

Dear All working on the OntoIOp project,

This standard is a greaat achievement!

Congratulation and many thanks to all who have contributed to it! 

Best wishes for a nice holiday season and looking forward to a great new year

Christian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20171220/00d3941a/attachment.html>

From terry.longstreth at comcast.net  Wed Dec 20 21:58:59 2017
From: terry.longstreth at comcast.net (Terry Longstreth)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:58:59 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
Message-ID: <fdb18576-7db2-0ef2-8584-2230f07eab34@comcast.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20171220/b03d8fd4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BaseBusinessLongstrethMinChar.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 11118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20171220/b03d8fd4/attachment.jpe>

From phayes at ihmc.us  Wed Dec 20 23:32:20 2017
From: phayes at ihmc.us (Pat Hayes)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:32:20 -0800
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
Message-ID: <087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>

I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 

Pat

> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
> 
> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
> 
> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>> in February 2018.
> 
> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
> 
> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
> Ontolog Forum?
> 
> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
> 
> John
> <dol.jpg>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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



From rick at rickmurphy.org  Thu Dec 21 01:00:26 2017
From: rick at rickmurphy.org (rick)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 19:00:26 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
Message-ID: <91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>

Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.

--
Rick

On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
> 
> Pat
> 
>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>
>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>
>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>> in February 2018.
>>
>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>
>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>> Ontolog Forum?
>>
>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>
>> John
>> <dol.jpg>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 

From rick at rickmurphy.org  Thu Dec 21 18:54:13 2017
From: rick at rickmurphy.org (rick)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:54:13 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
Message-ID: <ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>

How about it, Pat?

No derivations for "Common Logic"?

ISO 24707 actually has no inference rules or proof theory at all,
correct? How can they be "out of scope" for a logic?

Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
now? It's been 10 years.

Fabian, Annex D is only informative, but the following sentence may be
naively interpreted to mean that second order logic is required, or
somehow provided.

"Note that sequences are essentially a non-first-order feature that

can be expressed in second-order logic."

This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
"Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.

How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?

Good to see folks promoting Goguen's work though.

--
Rick

On 12/20/2017 07:00 PM, rick wrote:
> Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.
> 
> --
> Rick
> 
> On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>
>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>> in February 2018.
>>>
>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>
>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>
>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>
>>> John
>>> <dol.jpg>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>

From fneuhaus at web.de  Thu Dec 21 19:31:52 2017
From: fneuhaus at web.de (Fabian Neuhaus)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 19:31:52 +0100
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
	<ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>
Message-ID: <05B1EB38-53D4-4CA9-AEF4-5EED6E8CAB7C@web.de>

Dear Rick, 

> 
> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?

I am not sure how parametric polymorphism of object oriented programming languages would apply to DOL or CL. In particular, since DOL is a metalanguage and CL is not a typed language. 


> 
> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
> now? It's been 10 years.
> 
[?]
> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.


I don?t see a reason to rehash the discussions on the OMG list, you made your points quite clear. Further, this is not the appropriate place to argue the merits (or the lack of merits) of CL, since this list is concerned with DOL.  

Best
Fabian 


> Am 21.12.2017 um 18:54 schrieb rick <rick at rickmurphy.org>:
> 
> How about it, Pat?
> 
> No derivations for "Common Logic"?
> 
> ISO 24707 actually has no inference rules or proof theory at all,
> correct? How can they be "out of scope" for a logic?
> 
> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
> now? It's been 10 years.
> 
> Fabian, Annex D is only informative, but the following sentence may be
> naively interpreted to mean that second order logic is required, or
> somehow provided.
> 
> "Note that sequences are essentially a non-first-order feature that
> 
> can be expressed in second-order logic."
> 
> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
> 
> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
> 
> Good to see folks promoting Goguen's work though.
> 
> --
> Rick
> 
> On 12/20/2017 07:00 PM, rick wrote:
>> Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.
>> 
>> --
>> Rick
>> 
>> On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>> 
>>> Pat
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>> 
>>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>>> in February 2018.
>>>> 
>>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>> 
>>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>> 
>>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>> 
>>>> John
>>>> <dol.jpg>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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


From fneuhaus at web.de  Thu Dec 21 20:32:03 2017
From: fneuhaus at web.de (Fabian Neuhaus)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 20:32:03 +0100
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
Message-ID: <C4827EFC-404A-4F75-84C7-110C30642ADF@web.de>

Dear Pat, dear Till, 

(a) I submitted a ticket at OMG. 
http://issues.omg.org/browse/DOL11-2
Note that I have been intentionally vague, since I don?t think anybody has shown yet whether CL is equally expressive as first-order with induction. 

(b) Pat, to give some context to this diagram: One major benefit of DOL?s language translation is that it enables  tool support, in particular reasoner support, for languages that have no native support. Thus, as Till pointed out, the translation to second-order logic is more interesting than the translation to infinitary logics. Hets ? which implements DOL ? actually distinguishes between different sublanguages of CLIF, in particular between CLIF with and without sequence markers. Dependent on what sublanguage is detected by Hets a different translation is utilized. 

Best
Fabian 


> Am 20.12.2017 um 23:32 schrieb Pat Hayes <phayes at ihmc.us>:
> 
> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
> 
> Pat
> 
>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>> 
>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>> in February 2018.
>> 
>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>> 
>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>> Ontolog Forum?
>> 
>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>> 
>> John
>> <dol.jpg>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 


From rick at rickmurphy.org  Thu Dec 21 21:02:35 2017
From: rick at rickmurphy.org (rick)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 15:02:35 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <05B1EB38-53D4-4CA9-AEF4-5EED6E8CAB7C@web.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
	<ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>
	<05B1EB38-53D4-4CA9-AEF4-5EED6E8CAB7C@web.de>
Message-ID: <4a42087a-45b0-f655-d04e-f95879d50582@rickmurphy.org>

On 12/21/2017 01:31 PM, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
> Dear Rick, 
> 
>>
>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
> 
> I am not sure how parametric polymorphism of object oriented programming languages would apply to DOL or CL. In particular, since DOL is a metalanguage and CL is not a typed language. 

Start by re-reading Institutions : Abstract Model Theory for
Specification and Programming. Do a key word search on parameter.

Java and C# are no longer best characterized as object oriented
programming languages. Both now incorporate lambda expressions.

Functional programmers freely use and are versed in System F, or the
polymorphic second order lambda calculus.

CASL signatures are parameterizable. Between that an HasCASL there was
an opportunity to satisfy at least some of my requirements to support
mainstream languages.

> 
>>
>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>> now? It's been 10 years.
>>
> [?]
>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
> 
> 
> I don?t see a reason to rehash the discussions on the OMG list, you made your points quite clear. Further, this is not the appropriate place to argue the merits (or the lack of merits) of CL, since this list is concerned with DOL.  
> 
> Best
> Fabian 
> 
> 
>> Am 21.12.2017 um 18:54 schrieb rick <rick at rickmurphy.org>:
>>
>> How about it, Pat?
>>
>> No derivations for "Common Logic"?
>>
>> ISO 24707 actually has no inference rules or proof theory at all,
>> correct? How can they be "out of scope" for a logic?
>>
>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>> now? It's been 10 years.
>>
>> Fabian, Annex D is only informative, but the following sentence may be
>> naively interpreted to mean that second order logic is required, or
>> somehow provided.
>>
>> "Note that sequences are essentially a non-first-order feature that
>>
>> can be expressed in second-order logic."
>>
>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
>>
>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
>>
>> Good to see folks promoting Goguen's work though.
>>
>> --
>> Rick
>>
>> On 12/20/2017 07:00 PM, rick wrote:
>>> Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>>>
>>>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>>>> in February 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>>>
>>>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>> <dol.jpg>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 

From till at iks.cs.ovgu.de  Thu Dec 21 22:38:47 2017
From: till at iks.cs.ovgu.de (Till Mossakowski)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:38:47 +0100
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <4a42087a-45b0-f655-d04e-f95879d50582@rickmurphy.org>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
	<ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>
	<05B1EB38-53D4-4CA9-AEF4-5EED6E8CAB7C@web.de>
	<4a42087a-45b0-f655-d04e-f95879d50582@rickmurphy.org>
Message-ID: <5c19b47b-58a0-f394-121d-7ebb4e1ef5d3@iks.cs.ovgu.de>

Dear Rick,

DOL also works with HasCASL. Try it out with Hets. A web interface can
be found at http://rest.hets.eu/
Moreover, also Hets can also process CASL generics. So you can also use
them in connection with DOL, if needed.

Best, Till


Am 21.12.2017 um 21:02 schrieb rick:
> On 12/21/2017 01:31 PM, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
>> Dear Rick, 
>>
>>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
>> I am not sure how parametric polymorphism of object oriented programming languages would apply to DOL or CL. In particular, since DOL is a metalanguage and CL is not a typed language. 
> Start by re-reading Institutions : Abstract Model Theory for
> Specification and Programming. Do a key word search on parameter.
>
> Java and C# are no longer best characterized as object oriented
> programming languages. Both now incorporate lambda expressions.
>
> Functional programmers freely use and are versed in System F, or the
> polymorphic second order lambda calculus.
>
> CASL signatures are parameterizable. Between that an HasCASL there was
> an opportunity to satisfy at least some of my requirements to support
> mainstream languages.
>
>>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>>> now? It's been 10 years.
>>>
>> [?]
>>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
>>
>> I don?t see a reason to rehash the discussions on the OMG list, you made your points quite clear. Further, this is not the appropriate place to argue the merits (or the lack of merits) of CL, since this list is concerned with DOL.  
>>
>> Best
>> Fabian 
>>
>>
>>> Am 21.12.2017 um 18:54 schrieb rick <rick at rickmurphy.org>:
>>>
>>> How about it, Pat?
>>>
>>> No derivations for "Common Logic"?
>>>
>>> ISO 24707 actually has no inference rules or proof theory at all,
>>> correct? How can they be "out of scope" for a logic?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>>> now? It's been 10 years.
>>>
>>> Fabian, Annex D is only informative, but the following sentence may be
>>> naively interpreted to mean that second order logic is required, or
>>> somehow provided.
>>>
>>> "Note that sequences are essentially a non-first-order feature that
>>>
>>> can be expressed in second-order logic."
>>>
>>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
>>>
>>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
>>>
>>> Good to see folks promoting Goguen's work though.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2017 07:00 PM, rick wrote:
>>>> Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>> On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Pat
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>>>>> in February 2018.
>>>>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>>>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>>>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>>>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> <dol.jpg>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>


From till at iks.cs.ovgu.de  Fri Dec 22 00:20:10 2017
From: till at iks.cs.ovgu.de (Till Mossakowski)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 00:20:10 +0100
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] [ontolog-forum] Re:  DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
Message-ID: <cb57fe18-ee81-9fc8-ce00-c091df462f6e@iks.cs.ovgu.de>

Dear Pat,

the expressivity of CL is more precisely captured as "first-order logic
with induction", which recently has gained interest in the theorem
proving community [1]. The latter can be embedded both into second-order
logic and into infinitary first-order logic. For me, infinitary
first-order logic is much worse to handle than second-order logic: due
to the infinitary nature, there won't be any theorem provers, even with
your restriction to axioms. Therefore, in our graph, we only show the
connection to second-order logic, which has theorem proving support
(take any higher-order prover like Leo, Satallax or Isabelle).

Best, Till

[1] Koen Claessen, Moa Johansson, Dan Ros?n, Nicholas Smallbone: TIP:
Tons of Inductive Problems. CICM 2015: 333-337
http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~jomoa/papers/cicm15-TIP.pdf
https://tip-org.github.io/

Am 20.12.2017 um 23:32 schrieb Pat Hayes:
> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>
> Pat
>
>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>
>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>
>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>> in February 2018.
>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>
>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>> Ontolog Forum?
>>
>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>
>> John
>> <dol.jpg>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open
content license, open publication license, open source or free software
license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be
subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open
content license, open publication license, open source or free software
license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be
subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


From phayes at ihmc.us  Fri Dec 22 01:25:13 2017
From: phayes at ihmc.us (Pat Hayes)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:25:13 -0800
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
Message-ID: <DD59949C-0C15-4847-A7C7-B508E34866B3@ihmc.us>



> On Dec 20, 2017, at 4:00 PM, rick <rick at rickmurphy.org> wrote:
> 
> Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.

The mapping is pretty obvious once it is pointed out. 

(forall (?x)(FOO ?x))

maps to (and has exactly the same semantic truth conditions as)

(and 
	(forall (x)(FOO x))
	(forall (x1 x2)(FOO x1 x2))
	(forall (x1 x2 x3)(FOO x1 x2 x3))
?)

I should have said, if one restricts this so that sequence markers occur only *universally quantified* on the LHS of sequents, then it is first-order. This covers every actual use case that any of the CL developers have ever seen.

Pat

> 
> --
> Rick
> 
> On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>> 
>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>> in February 2018.
>>> 
>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>> 
>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>> 
>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>> 
>>> John
>>> <dol.jpg>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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



From phayes at ihmc.us  Fri Dec 22 01:37:36 2017
From: phayes at ihmc.us (Pat Hayes)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:37:36 -0800
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] [ontolog-forum] Re:  DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <cb57fe18-ee81-9fc8-ce00-c091df462f6e@iks.cs.ovgu.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<cb57fe18-ee81-9fc8-ce00-c091df462f6e@iks.cs.ovgu.de>
Message-ID: <63B4F6BB-0B8D-4BC9-9985-3C617959B13D@ihmc.us>

Hi Till

I understand (and respect) your preference for 2OL over infinitary for prover-relevant reasons, but the mapping to Lw1w is semantically exact, so should be mentioned for purposes of classifying the logics in expressivity terms. I was only vaguely aware of the FOL+induction work, but again I doubt if this gives an exact mapping of CL, since CL does not impose minimality of fixedpoints in its definitions. Of course, that often arises as a side-effect of the behavior of reasoners; but again, it is not a semantic condition. 

Still, all this is terminology-niggling, and does not really impinge on the excellent work of you and your colleagues on DOL. Congratulations on the latter, and on achieving standardization. I know how large and determined an effort this represents. 

Best wishes

Pat 

> On Dec 21, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Till Mossakowski <till at iks.cs.ovgu.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear Pat,
> 
> the expressivity of CL is more precisely captured as "first-order logic
> with induction", which recently has gained interest in the theorem
> proving community [1]. The latter can be embedded both into second-order
> logic and into infinitary first-order logic. For me, infinitary
> first-order logic is much worse to handle than second-order logic: due
> to the infinitary nature, there won't be any theorem provers, even with
> your restriction to axioms. Therefore, in our graph, we only show the
> connection to second-order logic, which has theorem proving support
> (take any higher-order prover like Leo, Satallax or Isabelle).
> 
> Best, Till
> 
> [1] Koen Claessen, Moa Johansson, Dan Ros?n, Nicholas Smallbone: TIP:
> Tons of Inductive Problems. CICM 2015: 333-337
> http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~jomoa/papers/cicm15-TIP.pdf
> https://tip-org.github.io/
> 
> Am 20.12.2017 um 23:32 schrieb Pat Hayes:
>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>> 
>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>> in February 2018.
>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>> 
>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>> 
>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>> 
>>> John
>>> <dol.jpg>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open
> content license, open publication license, open source or free software
> license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be
> subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open
> content license, open publication license, open source or free software
> license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be
> subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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



From rick at rickmurphy.org  Fri Dec 22 02:54:34 2017
From: rick at rickmurphy.org (rick)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 20:54:34 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <5c19b47b-58a0-f394-121d-7ebb4e1ef5d3@iks.cs.ovgu.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
	<ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>
	<05B1EB38-53D4-4CA9-AEF4-5EED6E8CAB7C@web.de>
	<4a42087a-45b0-f655-d04e-f95879d50582@rickmurphy.org>
	<5c19b47b-58a0-f394-121d-7ebb4e1ef5d3@iks.cs.ovgu.de>
Message-ID: <26893064-0bd5-d86e-ef78-a7008b1fa23e@rickmurphy.org>

Dear Till,

Great to hear from you and congratulations on the great with with DOL.

While "works with" is good, DOL as a standard excludes it, based on MOF
and fUML conformance.

Parametric types originate as UML Templates, also excluded by MOF and fUML.

See attached paper called "Parametric and Logical Types for Model-Driven
Engineering."

BTW - I used HasCASL in HETS last year for the US Government.

--
Rick

On 12/21/2017 04:38 PM, Till Mossakowski wrote:
> Dear Rick,
> 
> DOL also works with HasCASL. Try it out with Hets. A web interface can
> be found at http://rest.hets.eu/
> Moreover, also Hets can also process CASL generics. So you can also use
> them in connection with DOL, if needed.
> 
> Best, Till
> 
> 
> Am 21.12.2017 um 21:02 schrieb rick:
>> On 12/21/2017 01:31 PM, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
>>> Dear Rick, 
>>>
>>>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>>>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
>>> I am not sure how parametric polymorphism of object oriented programming languages would apply to DOL or CL. In particular, since DOL is a metalanguage and CL is not a typed language. 
>> Start by re-reading Institutions : Abstract Model Theory for
>> Specification and Programming. Do a key word search on parameter.
>>
>> Java and C# are no longer best characterized as object oriented
>> programming languages. Both now incorporate lambda expressions.
>>
>> Functional programmers freely use and are versed in System F, or the
>> polymorphic second order lambda calculus.
>>
>> CASL signatures are parameterizable. Between that an HasCASL there was
>> an opportunity to satisfy at least some of my requirements to support
>> mainstream languages.
>>
>>>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>>>> now? It's been 10 years.
>>>>
>>> [?]
>>>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>>>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
>>>
>>> I don?t see a reason to rehash the discussions on the OMG list, you made your points quite clear. Further, this is not the appropriate place to argue the merits (or the lack of merits) of CL, since this list is concerned with DOL.  
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Fabian 
>>>
>>>
>>>> Am 21.12.2017 um 18:54 schrieb rick <rick at rickmurphy.org>:
>>>>
>>>> How about it, Pat?
>>>>
>>>> No derivations for "Common Logic"?
>>>>
>>>> ISO 24707 actually has no inference rules or proof theory at all,
>>>> correct? How can they be "out of scope" for a logic?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>>>> now? It's been 10 years.
>>>>
>>>> Fabian, Annex D is only informative, but the following sentence may be
>>>> naively interpreted to mean that second order logic is required, or
>>>> somehow provided.
>>>>
>>>> "Note that sequences are essentially a non-first-order feature that
>>>>
>>>> can be expressed in second-order logic."
>>>>
>>>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>>>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
>>>>
>>>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>>>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
>>>>
>>>> Good to see folks promoting Goguen's work though.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>> On 12/20/2017 07:00 PM, rick wrote:
>>>>> Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rick
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>>>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>>>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>>>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>>>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>>>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>>>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>>>>>> in February 2018.
>>>>>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>>>>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>>>>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>>>>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> <dol.jpg>
>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: params.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 390262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20171221/8a54fd92/attachment-0001.pdf>

From sowa at bestweb.net  Fri Dec 22 04:18:08 2017
From: sowa at bestweb.net (John F Sowa)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:18:08 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <DD59949C-0C15-4847-A7C7-B508E34866B3@ihmc.us>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
	<DD59949C-0C15-4847-A7C7-B508E34866B3@ihmc.us>
Message-ID: <d3b9d48b-f387-811f-f30b-7953e1bb8d18@bestweb.net>

On 12/21/2017 7:25 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite
> conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order.
> ...  The mapping is pretty obvious once it is pointed out. > > (forall (?x)(FOO ?x))> > maps to (and has exactly the same semantic 
truth conditions as)> > (and> 	(forall (x)(FOO x))> 	(forall (x1 x2)(FOO 
x1 x2))> 	(forall (x1 x2 x3)(FOO x1 x2 x3))> ?)
As Pat's example shows, this restricted use of sequence markers
is a convenient notation for specifying axiom schemata.

FOL with axiom schemata is commonly used to specify set theory and/or
any mathematical structures definable in terms of set theory.

John

From rick at rickmurphy.org  Fri Dec 22 15:52:00 2017
From: rick at rickmurphy.org (rick)
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 09:52:00 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] [ontolog-forum] Re: DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <cb57fe18-ee81-9fc8-ce00-c091df462f6e@iks.cs.ovgu.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<cb57fe18-ee81-9fc8-ce00-c091df462f6e@iks.cs.ovgu.de>
Message-ID: <57d20b4b-fa51-5e0e-8638-380883dd5f44@rickmurphy.org>

Till, Pat & All:
On 12/21/2017 06:20 PM, Till Mossakowski wrote:
> Dear Pat,
> 
> the expressivity of CL is more precisely captured as "first-order logic
> with induction", which recently has gained interest in the theorem
> proving community [1].

TIP noticeably uses polymorphism and higher order functions. No surprise
from Chalmers.

I have not found any evidence of specific tests on Lw-1,w rather
parameterized lists and similar functional programming constructs.

DOL's MOF and fUML conformance rather than UML Templates precludes
claims of second order capabilities at least in the broad sense of
Girard-Reynolds.

> The latter can be embedded both into second-order
> logic and into infinitary first-order logic.

Classification should be on the smallest capabilities.

> For me, infinitary
> first-order logic is much worse to handle than second-order logic: due
> to the infinitary nature, there won't be any theorem provers, even with
> your restriction to axioms.

This is significant.

I understand this to mean there are no known provers of Lw-1,w. In order
to "handle" Lw-1,w, a higher order prover is required.

But as above DOL's conformance with MOF & fUML do not support second
order capabilities.

That's a problem.

Of course handling is different than classification.

> Therefore, in our graph, we only show the
> connection to second-order logic, which has theorem proving support
> (take any higher-order prover like Leo, Satallax or Isabelle).

But its outside the standard at least by Girard-Reynolds criteria. This
needs to be addressed.

> Best, Till
> 
> [1] Koen Claessen, Moa Johansson, Dan Ros?n, Nicholas Smallbone: TIP:
> Tons of Inductive Problems. CICM 2015: 333-337
> http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~jomoa/papers/cicm15-TIP.pdf
> https://tip-org.github.io/
> 
> Am 20.12.2017 um 23:32 schrieb Pat Hayes:
>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>
>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>> in February 2018.
>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>
>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>
>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>
>>> John
>>> <dol.jpg>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 

From rick at rickmurphy.org  Tue Dec 26 15:07:46 2017
From: rick at rickmurphy.org (rick)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 09:07:46 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <C4827EFC-404A-4F75-84C7-110C30642ADF@web.de>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<C4827EFC-404A-4F75-84C7-110C30642ADF@web.de>
Message-ID: <46290737-fdec-e964-a8c2-09c64a0f9f0c@rickmurphy.org>

There's no justification for induction on sequence markers in 24707.

There's a vague reference to a fixpoint assumption and general
commentary on quantification.

Likewise, there's no justification for being "intentionally vague."

--
Rick

On 12/21/2017 02:32 PM, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
> Dear Pat, dear Till, 
> 
> (a) I submitted a ticket at OMG. 
> http://issues.omg.org/browse/DOL11-2
> Note that I have been intentionally vague, since I don?t think anybody has shown yet whether CL is equally expressive as first-order with induction. 
> 
> (b) Pat, to give some context to this diagram: One major benefit of DOL?s language translation is that it enables  tool support, in particular reasoner support, for languages that have no native support. Thus, as Till pointed out, the translation to second-order logic is more interesting than the translation to infinitary logics. Hets ? which implements DOL ? actually distinguishes between different sublanguages of CLIF, in particular between CLIF with and without sequence markers. Dependent on what sublanguage is detected by Hets a different translation is utilized. 
> 
> Best
> Fabian 
> 
> 
>> Am 20.12.2017 um 23:32 schrieb Pat Hayes <phayes at ihmc.us>:
>>
>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>
>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>> in February 2018.
>>>
>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>
>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>
>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>
>>> John
>>> <dol.jpg>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
> 

From till at iks.cs.ovgu.de  Tue Dec 26 21:48:51 2017
From: till at iks.cs.ovgu.de (Till Mossakowski)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 21:48:51 +0100
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] [ontolog-forum] Re: DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <63B4F6BB-0B8D-4BC9-9985-3C617959B13D@ihmc.us>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<cb57fe18-ee81-9fc8-ce00-c091df462f6e@iks.cs.ovgu.de>
	<63B4F6BB-0B8D-4BC9-9985-3C617959B13D@ihmc.us>
Message-ID: <e8367892-6c8c-124d-6d39-f31232f8474b@iks.cs.ovgu.de>

Hi Pat,

thanks.
Yes, I agree that the mapping to Lw1w is semantically exact.
Concerning FOL+induction, you can use an induction principle to specify
lists, and thus internalise lists into the FOL universe. You need to
specify two disjoint predicates U and List (for the original universe,
and ofr lists). Then sequence markers are just translated to variables
restricted to the LIST predicate. Induction won't be used for minimality
of predicates or such.

Best, Till

Am 22.12.2017 um 01:37 schrieb Pat Hayes:
> Hi Till
>
> I understand (and respect) your preference for 2OL over infinitary for prover-relevant reasons, but the mapping to Lw1w is semantically exact, so should be mentioned for purposes of classifying the logics in expressivity terms. I was only vaguely aware of the FOL+induction work, but again I doubt if this gives an exact mapping of CL, since CL does not impose minimality of fixedpoints in its definitions. Of course, that often arises as a side-effect of the behavior of reasoners; but again, it is not a semantic condition. 
>
> Still, all this is terminology-niggling, and does not really impinge on the excellent work of you and your colleagues on DOL. Congratulations on the latter, and on achieving standardization. I know how large and determined an effort this represents. 
>
> Best wishes
>
> Pat 
>
>> On Dec 21, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Till Mossakowski <till at iks.cs.ovgu.de> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Pat,
>>
>> the expressivity of CL is more precisely captured as "first-order logic
>> with induction", which recently has gained interest in the theorem
>> proving community [1]. The latter can be embedded both into second-order
>> logic and into infinitary first-order logic. For me, infinitary
>> first-order logic is much worse to handle than second-order logic: due
>> to the infinitary nature, there won't be any theorem provers, even with
>> your restriction to axioms. Therefore, in our graph, we only show the
>> connection to second-order logic, which has theorem proving support
>> (take any higher-order prover like Leo, Satallax or Isabelle).
>>
>> Best, Till
>>
>> [1] Koen Claessen, Moa Johansson, Dan Ros?n, Nicholas Smallbone: TIP:
>> Tons of Inductive Problems. CICM 2015: 333-337
>> http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~jomoa/papers/cicm15-TIP.pdf
>> https://tip-org.github.io/
>>
>> Am 20.12.2017 um 23:32 schrieb Pat Hayes:
>>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>>
>>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>>> in February 2018.
>>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>>
>>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>>
>>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>> <dol.jpg>
>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open
>> content license, open publication license, open source or free software
>> license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be
>> subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
>> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>> -- 
>> All contributions to this forum by its members are made under an open
>> content license, open publication license, open source or free software
>> license. Unless otherwise specified, all Ontolog Forum content shall be
>> subject to the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 License or its successors.
>> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> an email to ontolog-forum+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


From rick at rickmurphy.org  Wed Dec 27 15:17:30 2017
From: rick at rickmurphy.org (rick)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:17:30 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <A52339E4-507A-4E2E-B4C3-2DBDD9364627@ihmc.us>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
	<ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>
	<A52339E4-507A-4E2E-B4C3-2DBDD9364627@ihmc.us>
Message-ID: <d77edf0b-d9cb-a5c2-e7cf-ddca56a7b207@rickmurphy.org>

On 12/21/2017 07:50 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 21, 2017, at 9:54 AM, rick <rick at rickmurphy.org> wrote:
>>
>> How about it, Pat?
>>
>> No derivations for "Common Logic"?
>>
>> ISO 24707 actually has no inference rules or proof theory at all,
>> correct? How can they be "out of scope" for a logic?
> 
> Did anyone suggest they are? 

You excluded them in 24707, 1 Scope which reads in part as follows:

"The following are outside the scope of this International Standard:
 * the specification of proof theory or inference rules; "

It's not logic without them.

>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>> now? It's been 10 years.
> 
> The CL effort was done pro bono, and AFAIK none of the authors have funding to work on it further. I certainly have not. Anyone who is interested is welcome to develop CL inference engines or other software, of course. 

Ten years gone and there's no reference implementation, right?

We are told that HETS parses CLIF syntax, but "handles" sequence markers
in second order logic, likely as polymorphic list types.

A consumer of 24707 and standards which depend on it assume significant
risk.

>> Fabian, Annex D is only informative, but the following sentence may be
>> naively interpreted to mean that second order logic is required, or
>> somehow provided.
>>
>> "Note that sequences are essentially a non-first-order feature that
>>
>> can be expressed in second-order logic.?
> 
> Well, that sentence is of course true.

Really? Where would I find sequence markers in the literature on
second-order logic? Reference please.

Assuming a reference, the sentence would be equally true in let's say
the calculus of constructions, right?

Everything that has lists, right?

> The mapping to Lw1w was not noticed until after that was written. We had a strong intuition that second-order was too strong, which is why this says 'can be expressed? rather than ?requires?. 

There's no mapping and there's no claim of induction related to sequence
markers in 24707. 24707 has a vague reference to fix points.

And all we've read is a post-hoc claim of an unspecified "induction
principle."

There's no proof, or inference rules, and there's no reference
implementation. Given the related "handle" claim, it sounds like
"requires" rather than "can be expressed" to me.

> If someone reads that sentence in the way you imply, above, then I would suggest they are not competent to read a formal specification. 

That seems pervasive around standards organizations.

>>
>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
>>
>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
> 
> With a puzzled frown, not understanding what possible relevance Java or C++ have to anything in this entire discussion (or in ISO 24707)

They have lists similar to those in second order logic which seem to be
required to implement sequence markers in 24707.

Turn that frown upside down.

--
Rick

> Pat
> 
>>
>> Good to see folks promoting Goguen's work though.
>>
>> --
>> Rick
>>
>> On 12/20/2017 07:00 PM, rick wrote:
>>> Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>>>
>>>> Pat
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>>>
>>>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>>>> in February 2018.
>>>>>
>>>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>>>
>>>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>> <dol.jpg>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 

From sowa at bestweb.net  Wed Dec 27 18:07:40 2017
From: sowa at bestweb.net (John F Sowa)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 12:07:40 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <d77edf0b-d9cb-a5c2-e7cf-ddca56a7b207@rickmurphy.org>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
	<ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>
	<A52339E4-507A-4E2E-B4C3-2DBDD9364627@ihmc.us>
	<d77edf0b-d9cb-a5c2-e7cf-ddca56a7b207@rickmurphy.org>
Message-ID: <fcd146d6-50af-ea7d-329d-36589d9dee63@bestweb.net>

On 12/27/2017 9:17 AM, rick wrote:
> Ten years gone and there's no reference implementation, right?

Logicians have been using, analyzing, proving theorems, and
publishing papers about versions of predicate calculus for
almost 140 years without having a reference implementation.

> A consumer of 24707 and standards which depend on it assume
> significant risk.

That risk is trivial compared to the risk they assume for using
the 99% of ISO standards that do not use any version of logic.

And that risk is insignificant compared to 99.9% of the applications
on the WWW that use some version of what they call "Semantic Web".

I'm not defending the lack of a reference implementation for CL.
But the "state of the art" of ISO standards does not require and
very rarely uses any version of logic.

For example, the proposed ISO standard for ontology requires the
use of OWL and/or CL to specify an ontology.  I suggested that they
should use one or the other of those logics (or just some plain
vanilla version of FOL) to supplement the vague English definitions.

The response I received is that it is not ISO's policy to use
any version of logic to define the terminology of a standard.

John

From rick at rickmurphy.org  Wed Dec 27 20:13:10 2017
From: rick at rickmurphy.org (rick)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:13:10 -0500
Subject: [ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation
In-Reply-To: <26893064-0bd5-d86e-ef78-a7008b1fa23e@rickmurphy.org>
References: <BB2A6B50-42B2-4BF8-B729-46CBBA0E996C@web.de>
	<FC8F2C71-C9FA-4BF2-B58D-EDEF47ACC81A@web.de>
	<d1f80958-7331-9338-cfe1-2f61a5335e09@bestweb.net>
	<087024B4-E7EC-4DD0-8811-8FCDD45AE4E8@ihmc.us>
	<91c25e4d-5f81-a218-bd99-f68dc5955b60@rickmurphy.org>
	<ba180d29-d8ce-558f-1aec-ff54bb9c5859@rickmurphy.org>
	<05B1EB38-53D4-4CA9-AEF4-5EED6E8CAB7C@web.de>
	<4a42087a-45b0-f655-d04e-f95879d50582@rickmurphy.org>
	<5c19b47b-58a0-f394-121d-7ebb4e1ef5d3@iks.cs.ovgu.de>
	<26893064-0bd5-d86e-ef78-a7008b1fa23e@rickmurphy.org>
Message-ID: <7deaf9bf-6784-60b0-3d46-c3eaefe2bfee@rickmurphy.org>

Till & Fabian,

I will be watching for a publication of the co-morphism to System F.

It will be useful addressing DOL I.6. QVT will not get you there.

Let me know when you want to talk about UML Templates. (attached)

--
Rick

On 12/21/2017 08:54 PM, rick wrote:
> Dear Till,
> 
> Great to hear from you and congratulations on the great with with DOL.
> 
> While "works with" is good, DOL as a standard excludes it, based on MOF
> and fUML conformance.
> 
> Parametric types originate as UML Templates, also excluded by MOF and fUML.
> 
> See attached paper called "Parametric and Logical Types for Model-Driven
> Engineering."
> 
> BTW - I used HasCASL in HETS last year for the US Government.
> 
> --
> Rick
> 
> On 12/21/2017 04:38 PM, Till Mossakowski wrote:
>> Dear Rick,
>>
>> DOL also works with HasCASL. Try it out with Hets. A web interface can
>> be found at http://rest.hets.eu/
>> Moreover, also Hets can also process CASL generics. So you can also use
>> them in connection with DOL, if needed.
>>
>> Best, Till
>>
>>
>> Am 21.12.2017 um 21:02 schrieb rick:
>>> On 12/21/2017 01:31 PM, Fabian Neuhaus wrote:
>>>> Dear Rick, 
>>>>
>>>>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>>>>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
>>>> I am not sure how parametric polymorphism of object oriented programming languages would apply to DOL or CL. In particular, since DOL is a metalanguage and CL is not a typed language. 
>>> Start by re-reading Institutions : Abstract Model Theory for
>>> Specification and Programming. Do a key word search on parameter.
>>>
>>> Java and C# are no longer best characterized as object oriented
>>> programming languages. Both now incorporate lambda expressions.
>>>
>>> Functional programmers freely use and are versed in System F, or the
>>> polymorphic second order lambda calculus.
>>>
>>> CASL signatures are parameterizable. Between that an HasCASL there was
>>> an opportunity to satisfy at least some of my requirements to support
>>> mainstream languages.
>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>>>>> now? It's been 10 years.
>>>>>
>>>> [?]
>>>>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>>>>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
>>>>
>>>> I don?t see a reason to rehash the discussions on the OMG list, you made your points quite clear. Further, this is not the appropriate place to argue the merits (or the lack of merits) of CL, since this list is concerned with DOL.  
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Fabian 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Am 21.12.2017 um 18:54 schrieb rick <rick at rickmurphy.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>> How about it, Pat?
>>>>>
>>>>> No derivations for "Common Logic"?
>>>>>
>>>>> ISO 24707 actually has no inference rules or proof theory at all,
>>>>> correct? How can they be "out of scope" for a logic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Shouldn't the ISO 24707 authors have released a Common LISP library by
>>>>> now? It's been 10 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fabian, Annex D is only informative, but the following sentence may be
>>>>> naively interpreted to mean that second order logic is required, or
>>>>> somehow provided.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Note that sequences are essentially a non-first-order feature that
>>>>>
>>>>> can be expressed in second-order logic."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an example of how misinformation is being circulated about
>>>>> "Common Logic." I have discussed this before at OMG.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you respond to the fact that Java and C# provide parametric
>>>>> polymorphism, but CL and DOL do not?
>>>>>
>>>>> Good to see folks promoting Goguen's work though.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rick
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/2017 07:00 PM, rick wrote:
>>>>>> Maybe Pat can show the derivations to avoid further misunderstanding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/20/2017 05:32 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>>>>> I hadn?t seen that diagram before. I believe that it is inaccurate to describe CL as having ?some second-order constructs?. Sequence markers take CL outside FO expressivity, but not to second-order. CL with sequence markers is in fact a subset of the infinitary logic Lw1-w which allows countably infinite conjunctions. This is a long way short of full second-order logic. If one restricts CL (Lw1-w) so that sequence markers (infinite conjunctions) occur only on the LHS of sequents, it is first order. So sequence makers can be used in ontologies (ie as ?axioms?) without going beyond FO expressivity. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pat
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Dec 20, 2017, at 7:01 AM, John F Sowa <sowa at bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Congratulations to everyone working on the DOL project.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From Fabian via ontoiop-forum,
>>>>>>>>> Good news concerning the standardisation of DOL! During the last
>>>>>>>>> OMG Technical Meeting the Architecture Board approved the changes
>>>>>>>>> that we made to DOL during the ?Finalisation Phase? (which in our
>>>>>>>>> case lasted 2 years). Hence, we cleared the last major hurdle on
>>>>>>>>> our way to the release of DOL 1.0. I expect that this will happen
>>>>>>>>> in February 2018.
>>>>>>>> And Fabian, I'm sending a copy of this note to Ontolog Forum, and
>>>>>>>> I also attached a copy of an earlier diagram (dol.jpg).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does this diagram reflect the current version?  If so (or not),
>>>>>>>> could you please send the URL of the latest documentation to
>>>>>>>> Ontolog Forum?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And is software available for the various mappings in that diagram?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>> <dol.jpg>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: params.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 390262 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listserv.ovgu.de/pipermail/ontoiop-forum/attachments/20171227/1003e7d4/attachment-0001.pdf>