I'm all for grouping and marking with an identifier any FMP. I note that CMPs are wished in several languages and to contain mathematical formulæ (as wel as... a bit more). I note that identifiers are not the same as titles and that titles are also needed and in multiple languages (the notation-census collects an amount of them already).
That's all "being baked" for OpenMath 3, right? Would you add somewhere there also the links within a child of property? paul Le 19-juil.-10 à 19:14, Christoph LANGE a écrit : > 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 _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
