[ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation

[Pat Hayes]

> On Jan 2, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Till Mossakowski <till at iks.cs.ovgu.de> wrote:
> 
> Am 02.01.2018 um 16:00 schrieb rick:
>> The DOL authors claim to "handle" sequence markers in HETS using "second
>> order logic" which by conformance with MOF and fUML is outside the scope
>> of DOL.
> second-order logic is not outside the scope of DOL. DOL is a
> meta-language that can be used for a variety of logics, provided they
> can be formalised as an institution. Such logics include propositional
> logic, OWL, Common Logic, first-order logic, second-order logic, modal
> logics, hybrid logics, temporal logics, higher-order logics (also
> variants including type constructors, subtypes and/or polymorphism),
> intuitionistic logics, program logics, and many more.

I confess to finding this either (a) hard to believe, or (b) slightly meaningless. This plethora of logics has such a variety of wildly different semantics that I fail to see how anything, or indeed anyone, mechanical or human, can define meaningful - truth-preserving - mappings between them all. But perhaps (?) preservation of meaning is not part of the game? 

Are there any logics that *cannot* be formalized as an institution? (Nonmonotonic logics. perhaps?) I have no idea what kind of constraint this formalization represents. 

Pat

> 
> Best, Till
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
>