Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
S
schaertl_andreas
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Container Registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Monitor
Incidents
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Terms and privacy
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
supervision
schaertl_andreas
Commits
8bead541
Commit
8bead541
authored
4 years ago
by
Andreas Schärtl
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
report: add summary about tetra queries
parent
8d8e7841
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
doc/report/applications.tex
+15
-4
15 additions, 4 deletions
doc/report/applications.tex
with
15 additions
and
4 deletions
doc/report/applications.tex
+
15
−
4
View file @
8bead541
...
...
@@ -255,10 +255,21 @@ implementations.
should be quick.
\end{itemize}
%Finally, ULO provides us with the \texttt{aligned-with} predicate to
%express equality between concepts~$C_1$ and $C_2$ where $C_1$ and
%$C_2$ typically originate from different formal
%libraries~\cite{align}.
Experimenting with
$
\mathcal
{
Q
}_
1
$
to
$
\mathcal
{
Q
}_
3
$
provided us with
some insight into ULO and existing ULO exports.
$
\mathcal
{
Q
}_
1
$
shows
that while there is no formal definition for ``elementary proof'', ULO
allows us to query for heuristics and calculate a difficulty score for
proofs and their associated theorems. Query~
$
\mathcal
{
Q
}_
2
$
illustrates
the difficulty in finding universal schemas. It remains an open question
whether ULO should include algorithms as a first class citizen, as a
concept based around existing ULO predicates or whether it is a better
idea to design a dedicated ontology and potentially data store entirely.
Finally, while we were able to formulate a SPARQL query that should
take care of most of~
$
\mathcal
{
Q
}_
3
$
we found that the existing data sets
contain very little information about authorship. This underlines
the observations made in Section~
\label
{
sec:expl
}
, developers writing
applications that query ULO storage need to be aware of the fact that
existing exports have ``holes''.
\subsection
{
Organizational Queries
}
\label
{
sec:miscq
}
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment