On Sun, July 18, 2010 12:13 am, Paul Libbrecht begin_of_the_skype_highlighting end_of_the_skype_highlighting wrote: > Le 17-juil.-10 à 23:08, David Carlisle a écrit : > > Isn't it pretty obvious that treating in OpenMath things outside > OpenMath is problematic? It may be obvious to you, it took me some time to come to the same conclusion, but yes, I agree. > Don't we need some "functors" down here that would "create an OpenMath > something" based on some external description? Here's my 2p, using a > functor external1#dlmf-description which would be interpreted as "a > symbol defined in the text pointed at the named URL with the classical > rigor of DLMF". > > > <FMP><OMOBJ> > <OMA><OMS cd="relation1" name="eq"/> > <OMS cd="transc1" name="sin"/> > <OMA> > <OMS cd="external1" name="dlmf-description"/> > <OMSTR>http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1</OMSTR> In terms of the post I have just made replying to Burce, this would be (correctly in my view) privileging (OED sense 2: The action of according high status, validity, or importance to a concept, viewpoint, etc., in comparison to others) 4.14.E1 and saying that the author of THIS file believes that this DLMF equation defines something useful. I'd be happier if these files were therefore written by/in cooperation with DLMF. > </OMA> > </OMA> > </OMOBJ></FMP> > > I would tend to feel this as being cleaner. > And I have no preference between relation1#eq and owl#sameAs. I think > the more interesting question is what would be the equivalence of > subclass statements.
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
