On Wed, January 27, 2010 11:28 am, Christoph LANGE wrote: > Dear James, > > 2010-01-27 09:43 Professor James Davenport <[email protected]>: >> I found this a useful reminder that we really ought to address the "RDF >> and OpenMath" issue. > > I'm up to that; I have always been interested in exploring that > connection. > In my soon-to-be-finished thesis there will be a lot of elaboration on > that. Excellent. > And, BTW, the way how I learnt about SCOVO is that a friend working on > semantic web topics contacted me and asked me how they should reasonably > express the mathematical relations between individual data points in RDF. > E.g. if http://statistics.db/Germany#GDP2009 is described as having the > numeric value V1, the unit â¬, some origin, further metadata, etc., if > http://statistics.db/Germany#GDP2010 is described as having the numeric > value V2, and if there is another data point > http://statistics.db/Germany#GDPGrowth20092010 with numeric value V3 and > "unit" percentage points, that the mathematical relation is V3 = V2/V1 * > 100 - 100. > > Well, I said that it's certainly straightforward to write it down in > Content MathML or OpenMath, using e.g. <csymbol > definitionURL="http://statistics.db/Germany#GDP2009"/> or <OMS > cdbase="http://statistics.db"; cd="Germany" name="GDP2009"/> for the data > points (the latter works here, but is problematic in general, as not all > URIs from the RDF works have the form aaa / bbb # ccc). It is less > straightforward > and maybe neither desirable nor reasonable to translate that to a pure RDF That would be my opinion. If it WERE in RDF, how would he reason about it? I would go for ANY semantic web construct with decent semantics, and MathML-C/OpenMath is such. > representation. Massimo Marchiori suggested such a translation at MKM > 2003, > but to the best of my knowledge that never really been adopted. RDF > usually > only supports binary predicates, plus certain cumbersome data structures > that > reasoners rarely support, but for adequately representing n-ary operators > one > would have to use those list- or array-like data structures. > > So in the end I suggested looking at one of the existing RDF-based unit > ontologies; it might be the case that some of them have semiformal > definitions > of binary arithmetic operators allowing you to say (in RDF) e.g. > > S rdf:type :Sum. > S :result X. > S :firstArg Y. > S :secondArg Z. > > Maybe that is actually the best way to go; and maybe it would be enough > for us > if the definition of that "Sum" "operator" were somehow linked to > http://www.openmath.org/cd/arith1#plus. Certainlyroom for a good debate here.
James Davenport Recently: Visiting Full Professor, University of Waterloo Now back as: Lecturer on XX10190, CM30070, CM30078/50123, CM50209 Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor and Programme Chair, OpenMath 2009 IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
