search

tillmo / DOL

The Distributed Ontology, Modeling and Specification Language (DOL) - an answer to the OMG RFP OntoIOp. * View the latest version here: https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/raw/master/Standard/dol.pdf. * Convenience version with diff to version of August 24: https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/raw/master/Standard/dol-diff.pdf * Homepage of OntoIOp is
http://ontoiop.org
7 stars 1 forks source link

Change "focussed OMS" to "OMS" #81

Closed fabianneuhaus closed 9 years ago

fabianneuhaus commented 9 years ago

@tillmo The definitions seems to be at odds. Section 4.2: "OMS (ontology, specification or model) collection of expressions (like non-logical symbols, sentences and structuring elements) in a given OMS language (or several such languages)."

Section 4.5 "focused OMS: OMS that has a single signature and model class (or logical theory) over that signature as its semantics NOTE A focused OMS is either a basic or structured OMS."

Obviously, if we rename "focussed OMS" to "OMS" we get a conflict here.

I suggest the following:

greenTara commented 9 years ago

On 11/2/14, 1:18 PM, fabianneuhaus wrote:

@tillmo https://github.com/tillmo The definitions seems to be at odds. Section 4.2: "OMS (ontology, specification or model) collection of expressions (like non-logical symbols, sentences and structuring elements) in a given OMS language (or several such languages)."

Section 4.5 "focused OMS: OMS that has a single signature and model class (or logical theory) over that signature as its semantics NOTE A focused OMS is either a basic or structured OMS."

Obviously, if we rename "focussed OMS" to "OMS" we get a conflict here.

I suggest the following:

  • Rename section 4.2 from "OMS" to "Basic OMS" *

    Include in in 4.2 the definition "Basic OMS (flat OMS) collection of expressions (like non-logical symbols, sentences and structuring elements) in a given OMS language.

Being in a single language is not enough. OWL is considered a language (last time I read the definitions, anyway), but if some expressions in the OMS are in OWL Full, while others are in OWL DL, I would not consider this a basic OMS.

Tara

fabianneuhaus commented 9 years ago

Am 02/11/14 19:26, schrieb Tara Athan:

On 11/2/14, 1:18 PM, fabianneuhaus wrote:

@tillmo https://github.com/tillmo The definitions seems to be at odds. Section 4.2: "OMS (ontology, specification or model) collection of expressions (like non-logical symbols, sentences and structuring elements) in a given OMS language (or several such languages)."

Section 4.5 "focused OMS: OMS that has a single signature and model class (or logical theory) over that signature as its semantics NOTE A focused OMS is either a basic or structured OMS."

Obviously, if we rename "focussed OMS" to "OMS" we get a conflict here.

I suggest the following:

  • Rename section 4.2 from "OMS" to "Basic OMS" *

Include in in 4.2 the definition "Basic OMS (flat OMS) collection of expressions (like non-logical symbols, sentences and structuring elements) in a given OMS language.

Being in a single language is not enough. OWL is considered a language (last time I read the definitions, anyway), but if some expressions in the OMS are in OWL Full, while others are in OWL DL, I would not consider this a basic OMS.

Tara

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/tillmo/DOL/issues/81#issuecomment-61417386.

OWL is considered a language (last time I read the definitions, anyway) The definition in the current draft is too vague to make a decision on whether OWL 2 EL and OWL 2 DL are two languages or the same language. OWL (without any proper specification) is provided as an example for a language.

In my opinion, a sensible identity criterion for a language would be its abstract grammar. Following this criterion, since OWL EL and OWL DL do not share the same abstract grammar, they are different languages. Or, in other words, OWL is a language family and not a language. (The W3C speaks of a language, which consists of several sublanguages, but that's just a different terminology.) Unfortunately, currently OntoIOp does not embrace the distinction, the standard just has "language" and "serialization" and does not allow to distinguish between language family and language. We probably should fix that. In any case, this discussion illustrates that the notion of "OMS language" needs some improvement. Fabian