>
> @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.
(01)
Roughly speaking you are right, but on a more detailed analysis there are
differences. In particular
the semantics of "combine-with-br(O1,…,On,BR) is not the same as the
semnatics of
O1 U …. U On U BR (where U represents a sepcial union that takes care of
clashes between names of the classes etc)
Indeed the DFOL/DDL semantics is a distributed semantics i.e., a model for
combine-with-br(O1….On,BR) will be (I1,…,In,dr) and every Oi is locallin
iterpreted in Ii, while
bridge rules BRij are interpreted in (Oi,Oj,drij). This is not strictly
equivalent to the unique interpretation associated to
O1 U …. U On U BR.
(02)
> 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?
(03)
It would be interesting to understand what is the semantics of "interpretation" (04)
> 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.
>
I cannot access this document so I cannot answer.
(05)
Luciano
(06)
> OK, but finally we agreed not to specify this, for two reasons:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> So the question is whether the same problems would also apply to
> combine-with-bridge-rules.
>
> 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?)
>
> What do you think?
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Lange, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham
> http://cs.bham.ac.uk/~langec/, Skype duke4701
>
> → 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/
> <mapping.pdf>
(07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|