[Om] Identifiers for FMPs

Paul Libbrecht paul at activemath.org
Mon Jul 19 22:43:33 CEST 2010

I'm all for grouping and marking with an identifier any FMP.
I note that CMPs are wished in several languages and to contain  
mathematical formulæ (as wel as... a bit more).
I note that identifiers are not the same as titles and that titles are  
also needed and in multiple languages (the notation-census collects an  
amount of them already).

That's all "being baked" for OpenMath 3, right?

Would you add somewhere there also the links within a child of property?


Le 19-juil.-10 à 19:14, Christoph LANGE a écrit :

> Dear all,
>  a preliminary consensus of the discussion about linking OpenMath  
> CDs to DLMF
> is that the entries for which DLMF currently has permanent URIs are  
> best
> conceived as counterparts to our FMPs.
> When we link from our FMPs to somewhere, but, more importantly, when  
> others
> (such as DLMF) link to our FMPs, they need identifiers.  What I'm  
> currently
> doing in my OCD→RDF translation is simply counting, i.e. the first  
> FMP of the
> sin function would get the URI http://www.openmath.org/cd/transc1#sin-FMP1 
> ,
> the second one FMP2.  (Actually the counting is slightly more  
> complex, but
> I'll keep it simple in this mail.)  That will get us into trouble if  
> e.g.
> * wrong or redundant FMPs should ever be deleted
> * additional important FMPs should be added
> Also, I see a lot of potential danger in having the "naming of FMPs"  
> done by
> some algorithm that is external to the CDs, which takes away control  
> from the
> CD authors.  (Imagine a CD author who created some FMPs and then  
> wants to
> contribute some RDF links to e.g. DLMF – that author would have to  
> know how
> that external algorithm counts.)
> Therefore, I'd strongly suggest to introduce at least some optional  
> mechanism
> for naming FMPs.  This can be a <Name> child element in the OpenMath  
> "tradition", but we could also borrow @xml:id.
> So far we've been talking about FMPs, but isn't the actual  
> counterpart to a
> DLMF equation a _pair_ of CMP (if existing) and FMP?  The OpenMath 2  
> way of
> pairing CMPs and FMPs is hard to process (although possible, of  
> course, I have
> also done it), especially in cases where either the CMP or the FMP  
> is missing.
> The actual objects we are interested in are not XML-encoded OMOBJs  
> in an <FMP>
> container, but "mathematical properties" of symbols.  In the  
> "OpenMath 3 draft
> CDs" this was elegantly solved as
> <Property>
>  <CMP/>
>  <FMP/>
> </Property>
> That would probably be something worth to adopt.
> Besides the obvious technical advantage, such an enhancement would  
> give us the
> opportunity to assign meaningful short names to mathematical  
> properties, such
> as "NAME's identity", "NAME's theorem", "implicit definition  
> of ...", which
> would IMHO facilitate maintenance and understanding.
> What do you think?
> Cheers,
> Christoph
> -- 
> Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange,  
> Skype duke4701
> _______________________________________________
> Om mailing list
> Om at openmath.org
> http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om

More information about the Om mailing list