Hi Paul, maybe you got me wrong. First of all, I like this whole idea in a very general sense: that people meet and work together on a -- whatever, in our case it would be CDs, of course.
On Tuesday 30 September 2008 04:14:09 Paul Libbrecht wrote: > I tend to misconsider groups that name their subjects vocabularies > since they generally represent the "ontology-is-too-complex" camp > which uses this argument to avoid standardization in many respects. Not at all. On the one hand, we should admit that OpenMath CDs are indeed not the most complex way of representing mathematical knowledge. We don't even have formal definitions (DefMPs) so far. The mathematical counterpart to the thing the semantic web people would call an ontology is probably something like the formal library of a theorem prover. On the other hand, many of the VoCamp initiators are experienced in engineering formal and complex ontologies. They are not afraid of standardization, but they know that for many domains standards just don't exist (yet), so they want to get some effort started. As I said, the result of a VoCamp would be a first seed, which will then either die or be subject to some standardization process. > (look at http://www.eurydice.org/ for example). What do you mean, what part of the homepage should I have a look at? Well, I see sections like "glossary" and "thesaurus". Of course, there I agree with you that we want to have something more formal, but that doesn't contradict the idea of a VoCamp at all. Cheers, 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
