Dear all, [note: I'm now posting to om3 only]
first a comment on Manfred's proposal, then another one. 02/13/2011 07:10 PM Manfred Riem: > I would propose to support more than the 2 encoding strategies. > e > One particular that comes to mind is a JSON encoding format. I strongly support this idea. My reason for supporting this is that JSON is gaining more and more popularity as a lightweight interchange format for web services. The "X" for "XML" in AJAX is actually largely obsolete, as XML is often considered too heavy for quickly sending around small snippets of data between applications that have a common understanding of OpenMath anyway. Note that I not only support JSON for OpenMath objects, but also for CDs. (Well, via the "meta" CD, CDs can be represented as objects, but the point of a JSON encoding is not that it just somehow encodes some data, but that it does that in a way that is both intuitive and space-efficient.) My actual proposal, which I am happy to prepare as a formal SEP, is something that might be called an "RDF encoding" in the context of this discussion. Here, the intended audience are not applications that know OpenMath well, because for them XML, binary, or JSON are more suitable, as they are less verbose. But the audience is [web] applications that do not know OpenMath but would still like to understand a bit about mathematics, or applications whose developers do not want to hard-code all OpenMath support into their implementations after having read the specification. Here, I am mainly thinking of an RDF vocabulary (a.k.a. ontology) that represents the abstract CD model, and some of you know that I have a complete proposal for that (chapter 3.2.3 of https://svn.kwarc.info/repos/swim/doc/phd/phd.pdf), which we might use as an input for whatever kind of standardization process. On representing OpenMath _objects_ in RDF, my point of view is that breaking down ordered n-ary trees into RDF triples is not a reasonable thing to do. However, I am aware of existing proposals to do it nevertheless. The most reasonable way IMHO is leaving objects in a more suitable encoding (e.g. XML), while optionally redundantly modeling some of their relevant properties (e.g. their type, or the root operator/constructor, as has been done in MONET), in RDF. In parallel to pushing that proposal, I will work on the promised publication of the OpenMath standard CDs as RDF linked open data (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4057) and interlinking them with other mathematical datasets. I am currently resuming these activities and preparing a CICM submission on that. But that's just to give you some background. I consider that independent from any OpenMath 2+/3 standardization activities. Finally note that there is a semi-standard way of encoding RDF graphs in JSON, but by the same argument as above, going that route would miss the point of a JSON encoding for _OpenMath_. If you have any informal feedback so far, please let me know; otherwise stay tuned for a more structured write-up. Cheers, and thanks, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701 Semantic Publication workshop, May 29 or May 30, Hersonissos, Crete, Greece Submission deadline February 28, http://SePublica.mywikipaper.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
