Re: [ontoiop-forum] OntoIOp teleconference (n.56): Wed 20143.04.09

[Till Mossakowski <mossakow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Tara,

I think you mixed up the term and (paort of) its definition a bit.
The term is "non-logical symbol" (and, as a synonym, also "OMS symbol").
The definition is "atomic _expression_ or syntactic constituent of an OMS that requires an interpretation through a model". I think that this phrase can be very well substituted for "non-logical symbol".

Best, Till



Am 09.04.2014 16:53, schrieb Tara Athan:

Dear All - I said I would go through the terminology section looking for issues with substitutability, ISO style. I have not done that completely, but I have a question from the start.

We have cases such as the first definition:

atomic:_expression_ or syntactic constituent of an OMS that requires an interpretation through a model

Here is an example:
Usage:
"…." is an <atomic> _expression_ of OWL..
Substitution:
"…." is an <_expression_ or syntactic constituent of an OMS that requires an interpretation through a model> _expression_ of OWL.

Clearly this is not going to work.

I don't know if something like the following is possible within ISO formatting rules:

atomic (_expression_ or syntactic constituent) of (an OMS X):
(_expression_ or syntactic constituent) of X that requires an interpretation through a model

Usage:
"…." is an <atomic _expression_ of OWL>.
Substitution:
"…." is an <_expression_ of OWL that requires an interpretation through a model
>.

Tara

_________________________________________________________________
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)