On Thu, July 31, 2008 12:09 am, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > I would like to raise an ambiguity that I find in the current OpenMath > vocabulary, e.g. as found in the OpenMath 2 specification: > > Symbols are encoded using the OMS element. > Oxford English Dictionary: "2. a. Something that stands for, represents, or denotes something else (not by exact resemblance, but by vague suggestion, or by some accidental or conventional relation); esp. a material object representing or taken to represent something immaterial or abstract, as a being, idea, quality, or condition; a representative or typical figure, sign, or token. "
So I can imagine an Oxford man saying that <OMS name="arcsin" cd="transc1"/> is a 'material object' representing a particular (as in the CMP/FMP) immaterial idea. > Although there's no statement about the "name" of the OMS element, > this seems to be mean that that OMS really means a symbol and I find > this ambiguous with the common naming "symbol" for a member of a > content-dictionary. Equally, one could regard "the element of the CD" as the symbol, as Paul is suggesting. > I would thus prefer to use, as much as possible, the name the element > OMS as "symbol reference". > This would strengthen the URI nature of an OMS and, unavoidably its > potential URL nature. > > I am not clear yet, but I think it would mean an amount of changes for > the OpenMath 3 spec, at least the line above. > > What do you think? That 17 angels can dance on the head of this pin. :-) More seriously, since a symbol IS a reference to an abstract idea, then the CD entry probably is the symbol, and <OMS name="arcsin" cd="transc1"/> is a reference to that symbol, so probbaly the wording ought to be shifted inthe direction Paul suggests. James _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
