Dear all, a preliminary consensus of the discussion about linking OpenMath CDs to DLMF is that the entries for which DLMF currently has permanent URIs are best conceived as counterparts to our FMPs.
When we link from our FMPs to somewhere, but, more importantly, when others (such as DLMF) link to our FMPs, they need identifiers. What I'm currently doing in my OCD→RDF translation is simply counting, i.e. the first FMP of the sin function would get the URI http://www.openmath.org/cd/transc1#sin-FMP1, the second one FMP2. (Actually the counting is slightly more complex, but I'll keep it simple in this mail.) That will get us into trouble if e.g. * wrong or redundant FMPs should ever be deleted * additional important FMPs should be added Also, I see a lot of potential danger in having the "naming of FMPs" done by some algorithm that is external to the CDs, which takes away control from the CD authors. (Imagine a CD author who created some FMPs and then wants to contribute some RDF links to e.g. DLMF – that author would have to know how that external algorithm counts.) Therefore, I'd strongly suggest to introduce at least some optional mechanism for naming FMPs. This can be a <Name> child element in the OpenMath XML "tradition", but we could also borrow @xml:id. So far we've been talking about FMPs, but isn't the actual counterpart to a DLMF equation a _pair_ of CMP (if existing) and FMP? The OpenMath 2 way of pairing CMPs and FMPs is hard to process (although possible, of course, I have also done it), especially in cases where either the CMP or the FMP is missing. The actual objects we are interested in are not XML-encoded OMOBJs in an <FMP> container, but "mathematical properties" of symbols. In the "OpenMath 3 draft CDs" this was elegantly solved as <Property> <CMP/> <FMP/> </Property> That would probably be something worth to adopt. Besides the obvious technical advantage, such an enhancement would give us the opportunity to assign meaningful short names to mathematical properties, such as "NAME's identity", "NAME's theorem", "implicit definition of ...", which would IMHO facilitate maintenance and understanding. What do you think? Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701 _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
