Proof Support for Common Logic

Mossakowski, Till; Codescu, Mihai; Kutz, Oliver; Lange, Christoph; Grüninger, Michael

doi:10.29007/2ksh

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 The goal and eventual outcome of this workshop was to discuss the concrete use-cases that could be employed to illustrate and elaborate the differences between the popular foundational systems in addressing basic modelling problems, and the logical means that should be employed. At this stage, the discussion also revolved around using different logical languages for a common formalisation, such as the description logic SROIQ underlying OWL 2 (Horrocks et al, 2006) vs. Common Logic 3 (Mossakowski et al, 2014) vs. more standard first-order logic (Kutz et al, 2010). Moreover, we discussed approaches and proof methods to establishing formal consistency results for the ontological systems, similarly to how they were pursued earlier for the consistency proof of DOLCE (Kutz and Mossakowski, 2011).…”

Section: A Brief History Of the Foust Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundational ontologies in action

Borgo

Galton

Kutz

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

GOAL', providing the general motivation for its inclusion in terms of the group of modelling problems that it targets, and secondly a 'FOCUS', that is, a target group of specific ontological issues.Brief overviews and a partial comparison of how the different ontologies approach the modelling of these examples are then provided in the remaining sections of this introduction. Case 1: (Section 3.1. Composition/constitution)"There is a four-legged table made of wood. Some time later, a leg of the table is replaced. Even later, the table is demolished so it ceases to exist although the wood is still there after the demolition." GOAL: The example aims to show if and how the ontology models materials, objects, and components and the relationships among them. FOCUS: The relationship between the wood and the table and the table's parts over time. (Artefacts and functions are not the focus.) Case 2: (Section 3.2. Roles) "Mr. Potter is the teacher of class 2C at Shapism School and resigns at the beginning of the spring break. After the spring break, Mrs. Bumblebee replaces Mr. Potter as the teacher of 2C. Also, student Mary left the class at the beginning of the break and a new student, John, joins in when the break ends." GOAL: The example aims to show if and how the ontology models the relationships between roles, players and organisations. FOCUS: The change of roles/players; the vacancy of the teaching position; persistence of the class while students come and go. Case 3 (a): (Section 3.3. Property change) "A flower is red in the summer. As time passes, the colour changes. In autumn the flower is brown." GOAL: The example aims to show if and how the ontology models change in qualities/properties. FOCUS: The change of the colour of an object. Case 3 (b): (Section 3.3. Property change) "A man is walking when suddenly he starts walking faster and then breaks into a run." GOAL: The example aims to show if and how the ontology models change during an event. FOCUS: The change in the speed and mode of locomotion. Case 4: (Section 3.4 . Event change)"A man is walking to the station, but before he gets there, he turns around and goes home." GOAL: The example aims to show if and how the ontology models change in goal-directed activities. FOCUS: An activity/event is not completed and another activity/event is completed instead. Case 5: (Section 3.5. Concept evolution)BACKGROUND: A marriage is a contract between two people that is present in most social and cultural systems and it can change in major (e.g. gender constraints) and minor (e.g. marriage breaking procedures) aspects. "A marriage is a contract that is regulated by civil and social constraints. These constraints can change but the meaning of marriage continues over time." GOAL: The example aims to show if and how the ontology models the evolution of the meaning of a term. FOCUS:The continuity/discontinuity of the meaning of marriage in the presence of changing qualifications.

show abstract

Section: A Brief History Of the Foust Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundational ontologies in action

Borgo

Galton

Kutz

2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Orchestrating a Network of Mereotopological Theories: An Abridged Report

Keet

Kutz

2018

Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parthood is used widely in ontologies across subject domains, specified in a multitude of mereological theories, and even more when combined with topology. To complicate the landscape, decidable languages put restrictions on the language features, so that only fragments of the mereo(topo)logical theories can be represented, even though those full features may be needed to check correctness during modelling. We address these issues by specifying a structured network of theories formulated in multiple logics that are glued together by the various linking constructs of the Distributed Ontology Language, DOL. For the KGEMT mereotopology and its five sub-theories, together with the DL-based OWL species and first- and second-order logic, this network in DOL orchestrates 28 ontologies.

show abstract

Proof Support for Common Logic

Cited by 2 publications

References 27 publications

Foundational ontologies in action

Foundational ontologies in action

Orchestrating a Network of Mereotopological Theories: An Abridged Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About