Category:LogicalOP - Revision history

EvaBlomqvist at 09:46, 15 June 2009

2009-06-15T09:46:12Z

EvaBlomqvist at 10:31, 9 June 2009

2009-06-09T10:31:51Z

EvaBlomqvist at 10:31, 9 June 2009

2009-06-09T10:31:19Z

EvaBlomqvist at 10:22, 9 June 2009

2009-06-09T10:22:54Z

EvaBlomqvist at 10:18, 9 June 2009

2009-06-09T10:18:14Z

EvaBlomqvist at 10:17, 9 June 2009

2009-06-09T10:17:55Z

EvaBlomqvist at 10:14, 9 June 2009

2009-06-09T10:14:13Z

EvaBlomqvist: New page: == Definition == A Logical OP is a formal expression, whose only parts are expressions from a logical vocabulary, e.g. OWL DL, that solves a problem of expressivity. == Description == ...

2009-06-09T10:11:56Z

New page: == Definition == A Logical OP is a formal expression, whose only parts are expressions from a logical vocabulary, e.g. OWL DL, that solves a problem of expressivity. == Description == ...

New page

== Definition ==

A Logical OP is a formal expression, whose only parts are expressions from a logical vocabulary, e.g. OWL DL, that solves a problem of expressivity.

== Description ==

Logical OPs are independent from a specific domain of interest, i.e. they are content-independent.

Logical OPs depend on the expressivity of the logical formalism that is used for representation
They help to solve design problems where the primitives of the representation language do not directly support certain logical constructs.

They can be of two types: logical macros, and transformation patterns

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:46, 15 June 2009
Line 26:		Line 26:
	Transformation patterns translate a logical expression from one logical language into another.		Transformation patterns translate a logical expression from one logical language into another.
	The semantics of the ﬁrst is approximated, in order to ﬁnd a trade-off between requirements and expressivity. An example is N-ary relations that cannot be directly expressed in OWL. An approximation of an N-ary relation in OWL is to create a new class representing the relation and indicate the arguments through properties.		The semantics of the ﬁrst is approximated, in order to ﬁnd a trade-off between requirements and expressivity. An example is N-ary relations that cannot be directly expressed in OWL. An approximation of an N-ary relation in OWL is to create a new class representing the relation and indicate the arguments through properties.
		+
		+	[[Category:StructuralOP]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:31, 9 June 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:

	Transformation patterns translate a logical expression from one logical language into another.		Transformation patterns translate a logical expression from one logical language into another.
−	The semantics of the ﬁrst is approximated, in order to ﬁnd a trade-oﬀ between requirements and expressivity. An example is N-ary relations that cannot be directly expressed in OWL. An approximation of an N-ary relation in OWL is to create a new class representing the relation and indicate the arguments through properties.	+	The semantics of the ﬁrst is approximated, in order to ﬁnd a trade-off between requirements and expressivity. An example is N-ary relations that cannot be directly expressed in OWL. An approximation of an N-ary relation in OWL is to create a new class representing the relation and indicate the arguments through properties.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:31, 9 June 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	Logical macros provide a "shortcut" to model a recurrent intuitive logical expression. Example: the macro ∇R.C colloquially means “every R must be a C” and		Logical macros provide a "shortcut" to model a recurrent intuitive logical expression. Example: the macro ∇R.C colloquially means “every R must be a C” and
	formally ∃R.⊤ ⨅ ∀R.C which in OWL would be expressed as the combination of an owl:allValuesFrom restriction with an owl:someValuesFrom restriction.		formally ∃R.⊤ ⨅ ∀R.C which in OWL would be expressed as the combination of an owl:allValuesFrom restriction with an owl:someValuesFrom restriction.
		+
		+	Transformation patterns translate a logical expression from one logical language into another.
		+	The semantics of the ﬁrst is approximated, in order to ﬁnd a trade-oﬀ between requirements and expressivity. An example is N-ary relations that cannot be directly expressed in OWL. An approximation of an N-ary relation in OWL is to create a new class representing the relation and indicate the arguments through properties.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 and a designer needs to represent a relation between more than two elements,
 a Logical OP is needed in order to express an n-ary relation semantics by
-only using class and binary relation primitives.
+only using class and binary relation primitives. They can be of two types: logical macros, and transformation patterns.
-They can be of two types: logical macros, and transformation patterns
+Logical macros provide a "shortcut" to model a recurrent intuitive logical expression. Example: the macro ∇R.C colloquially means “every R must be a C” and

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 an OWL ontology) is empty (with minor exceptions, e.g. the default inclusion
 of owl:Thing in OWL). On one hand, Logical OPs are independent from a
-specifi�c domain of interest (i.e. they are content-independent), on the other
+specific domain of interest (i.e. they are content-independent), on the other
 hand, they depend on the expressivity of the logical formalism that is used
 for representation. In other words, Logical OPs help to solve design problems

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 == Description ==
+Logical OPs are only expressed in terms of a logical vocabulary, because their
-Logical OPs are independent from a specific domain of interest, i.e. they are content-independent.
+signature (the set of predicate names, e.g. the set of classes and properties in
+an OWL ontology) is empty (with minor exceptions, e.g. the default inclusion
-Logical OPs depend on the expressivity of the logical formalism that is used for representation
+of owl:Thing in OWL). On one hand, Logical OPs are independent from a
-They help to solve design problems where the primitives of the representation language do not directly support certain logical constructs.
+specifi�c domain of interest (i.e. they are content-independent), on the other
 They can be of two types: logical macros, and transformation patterns

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 9 June 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{Definition
		+	\|Logical Ontology Design Patterns (Logical OPs)
		+	\|A Logical OP is a formal expression, whose only parts are expressions from a logical vocabulary, e.g. OWL DL, that solves a problem of expressivity.
		+
		+	}}

−	~~== Definition ==~~
−
−	~~A Logical OP is a formal expression, whose only parts are expressions from a logical vocabulary, e.g. OWL DL, that solves a problem of expressivity.~~