Hi Luciano, hi Till, hi Michael, (01)
[@Peter: Does Luciano have access to the WG-restricted WebDAV workspace?
If not, should he?] (02)
thanks for today's presentation on distributed reasoning! (03)
I have a question about the last topic we discussed: the integration of
your work into DOL. (04)
@Luciano, you suggested to extend DOL's existing "combine" keyword by
some explicit support for bridge rules. You also pointed out that the
bridge rules form an ontology themselves, just a special one, as its
purpose is to connect two existing ontologies. So in fact this
"combine-with-bridge-rules" would be syntactic sugar for a plain
combination of three (?) ontologies. (05)
Hope I got this right. Because, if so, we've had a similar case before.
Interpretations (of one ontology in terms of another ontology) can have
symbol mappings, e.g. Paper |-> Publication – but what if the symbols
involved are n-ary predicates and thus the mapping is more complex? (06)
On slide 19 (PDF page 20) of
http://interop.cim3.net/file/work/OntoIOp/Meetings/2012-02-23_Berlin-meeting/2012-02-23-meeting-slides.pdf
there is an example; imagine "lambda x, y" in front of the mapping line
in item (3). Those who don't have access, please find attached the
respective slide. (07)
OK, but finally we agreed not to specify this, for two reasons: (08)
1. One major potential user (Michael, for COLORE) said he wouldn't
really need this; auxiliary "mapping theories" have worked well for him
so far. (09)
2. It will be hard to implement. DOL-conforming applications so far
need to invoke parsers for different ontology languages, but only on top
level, i.e. when a _whole_ ontology is part of a distributed ontology.
Jumping into the "term" subroutine of the parser for some ontology
language (as to parse a mapping) might not always be possible, and there
will be syntax issues, with escaping characters that occur in the terms
of some ontology language but have a special meaning in DOL. (010)
So the question is whether the same problems would also apply to
combine-with-bridge-rules. (011)
The common pattern here is: We want to express complex relationships
among ontologies, which _can_ be expressed via auxiliary ontologies, but
for which one might prefer syntactic sugar. (So maybe DOL should take
this to an abstract level and provide general support for such situations?) (012)
What do you think? (013)
Christoph (014)
--
Christoph Lange, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham
http://cs.bham.ac.uk/~langec/, Skype duke4701 (015)
→ SePublica Workshop @ ESWC 2013. Montpellier, France, 26-30 May.
Deadline 4 Mar; http://sepublica.mywikipaper.org
→ Intelligent Computer Mathematics, 7–12 Jul, Bath, UK; Deadline 8 Mar
http://cicm-conference.org/2013/
→ Enabling Domain Experts to use Formalised Reasoning @ AISB 2013
3–5 April 2013, Exeter, UK. 3 Hands-on Tutorials on Economics
http://cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/formare/events/aisb2013/ (016)
mapping.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontoiop-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontoiop-forum/
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontoiop-forum/
Community Files (open): http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntoIOp (01)
|