- From: Bill Andersen <andersen@ontologyworks.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:15:28 -0600
- To: <smith@kestrel.edu>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
On 1/14/02 17:34, "Doug Smith" <smith@kestrel.edu> wrote: >> Could anyone please point me in the direction of any work done on ways of >> mapping between different vocabularies, schemas and their models. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. Doug, you are completely correct about all this. A couple of complications, however: 1) All of this work is based in classical semantics, which means it won't be easily applicable to systems with the CWA, to name one problem. 2) The interpretation functions don't come for free and as far as I know there's no magic bullet for producing them. Anyway, FWIW, there is also a large section on relative interpretation in Hodges' "Model Theory". Cheers. .bill -- Bill Andersen Chief Scientist, Ontology Works 1132 Annapolis Road, Suite 104 Odenton, Maryland, 21113 Mobile: 443-858-6444 Office: 410-674-7600 Web: http://www.ontologyworks.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2002 12:15:41 UTC