[ontoiop-forum] DOL finalisation

[Till Mossakowski]

Rick,

Am 03.01.2018 um 20:34 schrieb rick:
> Dear Till,
>
> Thanks so much for pointing this out. See below.
>
> On 01/02/2018 05:33 PM, Till Mossakowski 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.
> I have reviewed the RFP and proposal a few times. I understand scope is
> defined 6.1 and 6.5.4 and conformance in 6.5.5 of the RFP.
>
> 6.5.5 establishes conformance of languages and translations of which
> none listed are second order logic. Also Annexes D-H do not include a
> conformance statement for second order logic.
>
> How do you justify your claim that second order logic is not outside the
> scope of DOL?
see section 2.2 "Conformance of an OMS Language/a Logic with DOL" of the
DOL standard at http://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/ :

"The logical language aspect of an OMS language is conforming with DOL
if each logic corresponding to a profile (including
the logic corresponding to the whole logical language aspect) is
presented as an institution in the sense of Definition 2
in clause 10 , and there is a mapping from the abstract syntax of the
OMS language to signatures and sentences of the
institution."

For some specific logics, appendices of the DOL standard establish such
a conformance, but of course the scope of DOL is not limited to these.

> As an aside, I have searched the for a System F comorphism. Would you be
> able to provide a pointer to a paper?
>
I am not aware of institution-theoretic work on system F.

Best, Till