On Sat, July 17, 2010 6:51 pm, Christoph LANGE wrote: > 2010-07-17 16:42 Professor James Davenport <[email protected]>: > So you mean that the natural-language references from the CDs into the A&S > book are correct, and that the A&S book defines the same functions as the > CDs? > > And now you are going to check whether the DLMF also defines the same > functions? That is precsiely what I mean. I expect the second task will be relatively easy after the first. >> > Should I create a Trac ticket for that? >> Might as well. > > OK, I will do so and put you on Cc. Thanks. >> I think I agree with you. But the IN MY VIEW (not necessarily the same >> as >> Hayes-Halpin) asserting owl:sameAs is not something to be done lightly, >> but requires the sort of check I am proposing to do. > > Indeed, so I will stay tuned (or I might start with rdfs:seeAlso, if we > got the other issues settled). Thanks. I am slightly worried by Urs' comments, though only slightly (One could argue that the 'author' is the author of the chapter, not the author of the 'sin' section). Of course, one option (not that I necessarily support it) would be to annotate FMPs as being the same as DLMF's equations, not the whole function.
David Carlisle's comments worries me more, but I need to think about it. James Davenport 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 Council of the British Computer Society Federal Council, International Foundation for Computational Logic _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
