[Om] Adding DLMF links to CDs [Re: How to translate csymbol/@definitionURL]

Professor James Davenport jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk
Sat Jul 17 13:04:58 CEST 2010

On Fri, July 16, 2010 10:58 pm, Christoph LANGE wrote:
> Hi David, hi James (= CD editor), hi Bruce (= DLMF developer), hi all,
>   now my questions on how to add links to external datasets to the CDs
> have
> been answered and I know how to proceed.  The next question is:  _Should_
> I proceed?
Can we just check on the methodology first? I stringly suspect the answer
is YES once that's sorted out, though.
> As a first step, I'd suggest to add to the OpenMath 2 CDs (in
> http://svn.openmath.org/OpenMath/www/cdfiles2/cd) links to the DLMF, e.g.
> to
> transc1#sin as given below.  First a sample listing, then some further
> detail
> questions.  After that, the notation census and DBpedia (=
> machine-understandable variant of Wikipedia) could follow, and anything
> else that is reasonable and relevant.
> <FMP>
>   <OMOBJ xmlns="...">
>     <OMA>
>       <OMS cdbase="http://www.w3.org/2002/07" cd="owl" name="sameAs"/>
>       <OMS cd="transc1" name="sin"/>
>       <OMATTR>
>         <OMATP>
>           <OMS cd="mathmlattr" name="definitionURL"/>
>           <OMSTR>http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1</OMSTR>
>           <!-- this is the link, ... -->
>         </OMATP>
>         <OMV name="sin"/> <!-- ... the variable is just a dummy -->
I'm not sure I like this: sin isn't normally an OMV. We are talking about
THE sin, not just anything called sin.
Why not also put <OMS cd="transc1" name="sin"/> here?
>       </OMATTR>
>     </OMA>
>   </OMOBJ>
> </FMP>
> You see that attributions instead of OMS are needed, as the DLMF URIs
> don't fit into the cdbase/cd#name schema.
> Questions:
> The "links" to DLMF are currently redundantly given in natural language:
> "the
> ... function as described in Abramowitz and Stegun, section ...".  Do we
> want to keep that text?  (BTW, the DLMF URIs differ from the A&S section
> numbers;
> e.g. sin is in DLMF section 4.14 but in A&S section 4.3)
At least for the time being, yes. I beleive DLMF have promised that these
links into DLMF are permalinks.
> What kind of equivalence relation do we want to have?  The OpenMath
> functions
These functions - yes. I would want to doublecheck that
(I am down to review DLMF for CR anyway, so that's a necessary task).
While A+S/DLMF is veyr valuable, an OpenMath definition is logically a
separate assetion.
> are intended to be the same as the DLMF ones.  We could express that in
> the OpenMath way using relation1#eq (Is that applicable to functions?), or
Yes, in the extensional sense - two functions are the same if they always
give the same results.
> using owl:sameAs, which is more widely understood by RDF-based linked data
> clients.
> The latter would become relevant once we start serving the OpenMath CDs as
> RDF in addition to OCD and XHTML.
That's a very good question. I have slight doubts about relation1#eq since
we're comparing an OpenMath object to something that isn't one, but this
may be an ill-founded objection.
> We do not currently have a reasonable XHTML rendering for such FMPs.
> @David,
> would you like to implement one in the XSLTs, or would you like me to do
> it?

James Davenport
Lecturer on XX10190, CM30070, CM30078/50123, CM50209
Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology, University of Bath
OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor and Programme Chair, OpenMath 2009
IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication
Council of the British Computer Society
Federal Council, International Foundation for Computational Logic

More information about the Om mailing list