Isabelle_DOF
/
Isabelle_DOF
1
0
Fork 2
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

updating proving morphisms on ontologies section
ci/woodpecker/push/build Pipeline was successful Details

This commit is contained in:
Idir AIT SADOUNE 2022-04-12 16:41:51 +02:00
parent 76cff5beab
commit acbaa582ef
1 changed files with 5 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

11
examples/scholarly_paper/2021-ITP-PMTI/paper.thy
View File

@ -988,10 +988,7 @@ This mapping shows that the structure of a (user) ontology may be arbitrarily di
from the one of a standard ontology it references.
\<close>
text\<open>
The advantage of using the \<^dof> framework compared to approaches like ATL or EXPRESS-X is
the possibility of formally verifying the \<^emph>\<open>mapping rules\<close>. \<^ie> proving the preservation
of invariants, as we will demonstrate in the following example.\<close>
text\<open>
\begin{figure}
@ -1013,8 +1010,10 @@ lemma Computer_Hardware_to_Hardware_morphism_total :
\<close>
text\<open>The example proof in \autoref{fig-xxx} for a simple, but typical example of reformatting
meta-data into another format along an ontological mapping are nearly trivial: after unfolding
the invariant and the morphism definitions, the preservation proof is automatic.
\<close>
the invariant and the morphism definitions, the preservation proof is automatic. The advantage
of using the \<^dof> framework compared to approaches like ATL or EXPRESS-X is
the possibility of formally verifying the \<^emph>\<open>mapping rules\<close>. \<^ie> proving the preservation
of invariants, as we will demonstrate in the following example.\<close>
(*
section*[ontoexample::text_section,main_author="Some(@{docitem ''idir''}::author)"]