[Om3] How should Signature und Notation Dictionaries point to CDs

[James Davenport]

On Tue, 13 May 2008, Christoph LANGE wrote:
>   I noticed one more inconsistency in the way we currently give
> additional information about symbols defined in CDs, namely signature
> dictionaries and notation dictionaries point to their content
> dictionaries in different ways
> For signature dictionaries it looks like this (assuming the consensus
> from the previous discussions on that topic):
>
> <CDSignatures cdbase="mybase" cd="mycd" type="...">
>   <Signature name="symbolname">
>     <!-- points to the symbol (mybase, mycd, symbolname) -->
>   </Signature>
> </CDSignatures>
>
> And now for notation dictionaries:
>
> <notations>
>   <notation cdbase="mybase" cd="mycd" name="symbolname">
>     <!-- points to the symbol (mybase, mycd, symbolname) -->
>   </notation>
> </notations>
>
> I think we should settle on one of these ways. (I don't care which one.)
Am I right in saying that the difference is that one is on the whole list
<CDSignatures> not <Signature>, and the other is the other way round: not
<notations> but <notation>?
> What do you think about that?
The goal is certainly a good one.
If we are saying (see otehr thread) that EACH OMOBJ should be
self-contained, then why not say the same for each <Signature> and
<notation>: i.e. adopt the notation school of thought?
James