Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This paper discusses various aspects of formal languages in the context of cognitive radio. A bottom up approach is taken in which an example of a specification of a feature of cognitive radio in a selected language is shown, followed by an example of a feature that cannot be expressed in the language and the identification of a capability that needs to be added to the language in order to cover the identified gap in the expressiveness. Following this pattern, we start with a language based on description logics and add the capability of expressing rules, then functions, and finally behavioral aspects. The running example used in this paper - conveying the description of a component to be synthesized by another radio - covers two major aspects of a cognitive radio: an ability to express own capabilities and an ability to interoperate with other cognitive radios.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kokar et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: