On Mon, March 5, 2012 2:28 pm, Christoph LANGE wrote: > Hi Ken, > > [plus others: maybe David, James, Michael, Paul?] > > in short: I'm really happy to see that there are so many good ideas > for OpenMath-RDF interoperability around. Your post hardly leaves any > questions open. I particularly like how you pointed out the ability > of implementing partial typechecking in OWL. > > I guess it would be a good time to ask the "senior" OpenMath folks for > their opinion about this. My intuition is that we will never win a > majority for changing anything about the OpenMath URI scheme â but I > think it would make sense if a future OpenMath specification mentioned > at least some non-normative best practices on how to make OpenMath > interoperable with RDF. Just to prevent _even_ more people from > reinventing the wheels that we have invented already. That's a good point. And indeed, Om has been rather static of late, and I fear this is not because everyone is happy with it.
My own view is that there is nothing to stop this discussion being summarised in a "best practice" note or some such. I guess the OMSoc executive would have to approve this, but thi swould not be the same as a change to the standard. James Davenport Lecturer on XX10190, CM30070 and CM20215 Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication Engineering & Science Board, Council of the British Computer Society Director of Studies, HPC Doctoral Taught Course Centre Federal Council, International Foundation for Computational Logic _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
