RE: model-model mapping

>The logical notion of theory morphism or interpretation (between
>theories) may be useful here.  The key idea is to translate from one
>language to the other in a way that preserves meaning, specifically,
>theorems are preserved under translation.  The translation is
>typically specified by a symbol-to-term map.

Right, I'd more or less gathered that, but didn't know the terminology. One
thing that caught my eye a while ago was John Sowa talking about the use of
Pierce's methods, that were very staightforward, if you translate the logic
into a CG-style form.

>At Kestrel Institute we use interpretations to refine one
>specification to another.  Any data structure in the source spec can
>be translated into a data structure in the target spec, and then
>operated upon by algorithms in the target.  We are pursuing the use of
>interpretations as a basis for ontology translation in the DARPA DAML
>project.

Has anything being published? (online - I can't afford journals)

After not finding anything particularly applicable I've just started putting
together a schema/code to translate from one structure to another (RDF to
RDF, the mapping specified in RDF). I'm approaching it from application code
up rather than theory down, so whatever I come up with will be informal, but
I'll notify the list if I make progress.

>Many texts on logic cover interpretations between theories
>(e.g. Schoenfield, Enderton).  Originally, they were developed as a
>way to study the relative consistency of two theories.

Thanks, I'll do a bit of reading (when time permits) - as well as the
terminology, having the odd author's name is useful too...

Cheers,
Danny.

Received on Tuesday, 15 January 2002 06:53:04 UTC