[Trac] [OpenMath] #71: Clarify the semantics of CDComment

[OpenMath]

#71: Clarify the semantics of CDComment
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
    Reporter:  clange      |           Owner:  kohlhase  
        Type:  proposal    |          Status:  new       
    Priority:  major       |       Milestone:            
   Component:  CD3 Format  |         Version:            
    Keywords:              |   Include_gantt:  0         
Dependencies:              |      Due_assign:  YYYY/MM/DD
   Due_close:  YYYY/MM/DD  |  
---------------------------+------------------------------------------------
 The semantics of CDComment is unclear, or at least not semantic-web-
 friendly.  Let me cite from the 2.0 spec:
 {{{
 The content of this element should be text that does not convey
 any crucial information concerning the current Content Dictionary.
 }}}
 In many cases it does convey crucial information, namely licensing.  But
 maybe we want a special element for that (cf. #18).
 {{{
 It can be used in the Content Dictionary header to report the
 author of the Content Dictionary and to log change information.
 }}}
 Special fields for the author have been proposed already (cf. #12, #38).

 Still, there may be information that just doesn't fit into whatever
 extended metadata scheme -- information that the author still considers
 "comment"-like.  If we follow #39, I'd propose reusing
 [http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_comment rdfs:comment] and declaring
 `CDComment` as syntactic sugar.
 {{{
 In the body of the Content Dictionary, it can be used to attach
 extra remarks to certain symbols.
 }}}
 Fine.  It does make sense to have multiple "comment" metadata fields in a
 CD, which are separate from each other.  But not mixed with
 `CDDefinitions`!  That looks to me like a relic from the plain text age,
 which I consider incompatible with well-defined XML markup and the
 semantic web.  For attaching comments to symbols, we do have `CDComment`
 as a child of `CDDefinition`, and in the line of #40 we might want to
 allow `CDComment` on more fine-grained levels as well.  But what semantics
 does
 {{{
 <CD>
   <CDDefinition/>
   <CDComment/>
   <CDDefinition/>
 </CD>
 }}}
 have?  Is the comment a comment about the preceding symbol? Then it should
 be a child of that CDDefinition!  Same for the following symbol.
 Otherwise, the relation between the comment and the thing that it comments
 wouldn't be clear to an automated data processor.  If it is a comment
 about the CD, then it could as well be placed in the CD header, preceding
 any CDDefinitions.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.mathweb.org/OM3/ticket/71>
OpenMath <http://www.openmath.org>
The development of the OpenMath Standard and Content Dictionaries.