SUO: Re: Language And Module Processing (LAMP)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Robert,
I have the impression that you are making a lot of sense here --
I don't really know for sure yet, but I think that it would be
worth spending some time to think it through. I would begin
by trying to construct a concrete example that exhibits the
various features you are talking about, and then see what
I can see from there. In general, of course, it's best
to begin with a simple example. I am out of time for
this until late tonight or tomorrow, but I will try
to think of some.
Jon
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Robert E. Kent wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I have posted a file called "Language and Module Processing" at the address:
>
> http://suo.ieee.org/IFF/language-module-processing.html
>
> and linked off the main SUO IFF page.
>
> In this file I have offered a possible diagrammatic scenario for
> the creation of the John Sowa's library of modules diagram:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/figs/suohier2.gif
>
> which (as John mentioned in a previous message) shows how
> the modules derived from SUMO and OpenCyc could fit together.
>
> There are six diagrams linked by five processing steps.
> The first two processing steps occur in the *context of theories*,
> whereas the last three processing steps occur in the *lattice of theories*.
>
> The first diagram assumes two distinct ontologies SUMO and OpenCyc have been
> resolved into several submodules resulting in two libraries of modules within
> two lattices of theories for two distinct first order logic (FOL) languages
> L_SUMO and L_CpenCyc, respectively. Recall that an FOL language is the
> terminological content of an ontology consisting of relation symbols,
> function symbols and constants with appropriate arities specified.
>
> The first step forms the sum of the two FOL languages using the disjoint union
> of the sets of relation symbols, function symbols and constants. This results
> in the second diagram which has only one summed FOL language, but consists of
> the two ontologies arranged as two distinct libraries of modules in a single
> lattice of theories (recall that each FOL language determines its own
> lattice of theories.
>
> The second step involves two substeps: (1) specifying equivalent relation symbols,
> equivalent function symbols, and equivalent constant symbols; and (2) forming the
> quotient of the sum language modulo these equivalence relations. This results in
> the third diagram which has only one quotiented FOL language, but still consists
> of the two ontologies arranged as two distinct libraries of modules in a single
> lattice of theories.
>
> The third step works inside a lattice of theories. It forms a single library
> of modules by summing the two previous libraries of modules. This results in
> the fourth diagram which has the two ontologies arranged within one library
> of modules in a single lattice of theories.
>
> The fourth step accomplishes two objectives: (1) it extracts various
> sub-sub-modules from the various sub-modules of the two ontologies;
> and (2) it may create from scratch several generic modules that may
> be needed later. This results in the fifth diagram which has these
> generic modules situated at the highest level below the top, with
> the two ontologies arranged below these.
>
> The fifth and final step creates a customized theory by forming the meet
> of some of the original submodules from the two ontologies plus some of the
> generic modules. The meet is formed by taking the union of the axioms in the
> appropriate modules.
>
> Please look this over and send me your comments.
>
> Robert E. Kent
> rekent@ontologos.org
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o