Hi Luciano, (01)
2013-02-21 17:02 Luciano Serafini:
>> @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.
>
> 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)
Thanks for pointing out the differences. So it seems that, in constrast
to the "interpretation" problem I mentioned, combinations with bridge
rules do need their own dedicated support by the DOL language.
>
>> 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?
>
> It would be interesting to understand what is the semantics of
>"interpretation" (03)
This is explained on page 12 (end of section 6.1) of
http://interop.cim3.net/file/pub/OntoIOp/Publications/FOIS_2012/paper.pdf. (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)
I had attached the relevant slide to my initial email, but I think it
makes more sense to attach the whole presentation. It does not contain
any information more confidential than what we discussed yesterday
anyway. Just note that some information may be obsolete now. So I was
talking about slide 19 (PDF page 20). (06)
Cheers, (07)
Christoph (08)
--
Christoph Lange, School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham
http://cs.bham.ac.uk/~langec/, Skype duke4701 (09)
→ 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/ (010)
2012-02-23-meeting-slides.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)
|