Dear all, the discussion on what to call a symbol reminds me of another issue. I've never liked the element name CDDefinition. Especially if we follow David's reasoning that an OMS _is_ a symbol, whereas a symbol is _defined_ in a CD, shouldn't the name of that element be something like SymbolDefinition? After all, it is a definition of a symbol, not a definition of a CD. Well, it is a definition _in_ a CD, but that is IMHO not worth being materialised in an element name. In the ontology (subdirectory owl) I have named that thing SymbolDefinition. The only argument against doing it in the Relax NG is, of course, that it would break compatibility.
Best, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, DERI Galway/Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
