[om] yet again - Standard .. Ontologies for Math

[J H Davenport]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Andrew Solomon wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it isn't a requirement
You are quite right, but it woudl be nice if it could be said formally.
If it can't, so be it.
> of OpenMath to say it formally. Naturally, it would be nice, but it
> is an optional extra. The idea of a CD definition is to inform
> human phrasebook writers.
This is one (totally valid) idea of OpenMath Cds.
Indeed it is the only one that makes sense for basic concepts (like
NumericalValue).
In other cases (e.g. the Units Cds) it might be mor reasonable to expect a
system to parse them, but only, I think, assuming it already had the base
knowledge.
James


--
om at openmath.org  -  general discussion on OpenMath
Post public announcements to om-announce at openmath.org
Automatic list maintenance software at majordomo at openmath.org
Mail om-owner at openmath.org for assistance with any problems