[Om] Abbreviated symbols (was Re: Questions about representing units)

Professor James Davenport jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk
Sun Feb 22 23:15:52 CET 2009

On Sun, February 22, 2009 9:32 pm, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> Abbreviated symbols are definitely a matter of input and output and
> not matter of semantic to my taste. However the need to declare a new
> symbol often has it's own reasons... merely stating that it should be
> handled by something else is not really a good answer.
The way I see it that there would be no real need for miles_per_hour if it
didn't have a "non-standard" abbreviation, so whatever abbreviation one
had (outside semantics) would still need somesemantics to connect to.
> There's a need to declare a symbol as "the same as, if you want to
> ignore this part of the world".
> The reason I suggested OWL at the time was that it does have abilities
> to declare that two classes are to be considered the specialization or
> the  same thing provided you can see such a statement.
> I absolutely know that FMPs can declare that one construct is equal to
> another but the geometry of facts is different. I think the right
> question that one should be able to answer is "what to do if I meet
> symbol bla-bla and can't do anything with it".
> - an FMP that states that bla-bla is bla would be wrong, it would mean
> that bla-bla has no finer semantic
> - an FMP that states that bla-bla is a specialization of bla would
> allow the processor to ignore bla-bla and replace all occurrences of
> OMS-bla-bla to OMS-bla
> Probably some other discovery effects should be analyzed.
What we really need is a taxonomy of FMPs:-)

More seriously, we could discuss this is Grand Bend. How do you see
LandauIn fitting in here?

James Davenport
Visiting Full Professor, University of Waterloo
Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology and
Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath
OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor
IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication

More information about the Om mailing list