On Tue, 13 May 2008, Christoph LANGE wrote: > I noticed one more inconsistency in the way we currently give > additional information about symbols defined in CDs, namely signature > dictionaries and notation dictionaries point to their content > dictionaries in different ways > For signature dictionaries it looks like this (assuming the consensus > from the previous discussions on that topic): > > <CDSignatures cdbase="mybase" cd="mycd" type="..."> > <Signature name="symbolname"> > <!-- points to the symbol (mybase, mycd, symbolname) --> > </Signature> > </CDSignatures> > > And now for notation dictionaries: > > <notations> > <notation cdbase="mybase" cd="mycd" name="symbolname"> > <!-- points to the symbol (mybase, mycd, symbolname) --> > </notation> > </notations> > > I think we should settle on one of these ways. (I don't care which one.) Am I right in saying that the difference is that one is on the whole list <CDSignatures> not <Signature>, and the other is the other way round: not <notations> but <notation>? > What do you think about that? The goal is certainly a good one. If we are saying (see otehr thread) that EACH OMOBJ should be self-contained, then why not say the same for each <Signature> and <notation>: i.e. adopt the notation school of thought? James
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
