[Om] DLMF CDs vs. openmath.org CDs [Re: Adding DLMF links to CDs]

[Christoph LANGE]

Hi Bruce,

  let me comment on that separately:

2010-07-18 03:09 Bruce Miller <bruce.miller at nist.gov>:
> Incidentally, it was always the intent to develop
> (or support the development of) DLMF CD's,
> 
> Perhaps, ultimately there should end up urls of the form
> http://dlmf.nist.gov/#sin, but what they actually
> signify is another potential area of discussion.

I'm not sure whether DLMF CDs would be helpful.  For those functions that are
in DLMF but not in the openmath.org CDs certainly yes, but how about those
functions that are already in the openmath.org CDs?  It would certainly be
helpful if DLMF introduced URIs for those functions, so that we could properly
refer to functions instead of equations.  But let me create a quick list of
pros and cons of openmath.org CDs vs. DLMF CDs defining the same functions:

pro openmath.org:
* widely accepted (e.g. by CAS software)
* official status by MathML (consider the MathML formulæ in DLMF – would you
  rather annotate them with Content MathML using the built-in MathML =
  OpenMath symbols, or would you rather use <csymbol cd="dlmf">...</csymbol>?)

pro DLMF:
* better definitions
* or, in any case, more reasonable FMPs and Examples
* authoritative in that even the openmath.org definitions are derived from A&S
  = DLMF

So in the end the solution might be both openmath.org and DLMF having CDs for
the same, pointing to each other by the mechanisms we're discussing here.

Cheers,

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://openmath.org/pipermail/om/attachments/20100718/2905a4c1/attachment.pgp