Hi Paul, dear all, let me reply to your blog post and your mails at once. First about your blog post: A good statement! The semantic web community is sometimes a bit self-centered. For example, I was once asked by a semantic web expert why we used OMDoc for semantic markup and not just the "standard" RDFa. Replace OMDoc by OpenMath for the purpose of this discussion. Well, we have reasons for using our "non-standard" markup (if interested, see https://svn.omdoc.org/repos/omdoc/trunk/doc/blue/foaf/note.pdf), but actually the good thing about this criticism was that it made us _think_ _why_ there are benefits in using OMDoc/OpenMath.
I suppose that nothing was wrong about your WWW submission, but that you failed to speak "their" language, i.e. to explain to them _why_ OpenMath is a bit more semantic than "ordinary XML" and indeed has more than "implicit semantics". I usually compare OpenMath CDs to RDFS ontologies, which have a similar expressivity -- you define collections of symbols (or classes, or properties) with unique identifiers, a few formal interrelations, plus informal descriptions and explanations. Thus, OpenMath can be considered an ontology language, but it's not obvious in the first place. @Jürgen: I think that OpenMath indeed doesn't compare that well to more formal ontology languages like OWL. @James: I agree that DefMPs would make OpenMath a bit more formal (more like OWL). @David: I think the OpenMath symbols ontology you mentioned is not too "semantic" in the sense that was asked for here. IMHO there is not too much value in knowing that, e.g., every transc1#sin is a #transc1_Symbols and this an #OpenMathSymbol -- a fact that we can obtain from the respective rdfs:subClassOf relationship. I think there's a lot more of "CD structure" that could be expressed in terms of semantic web ontologies -- imagine a combination of your "symbol ontology" and my "document ontology", which doesn't talk too much about symbols, but about the other structural aspects of CDs. (See http://kwarc.info/projects/swim/pubs/semwiki08-notation-semantics.pdf for details.) The value of the MONET OpenMath ontology only comes from its integration with the other MONET ontologies (http://monet.nag.co.uk/monet/publicdocs/monet_ontologies.html), which are indeed useful for CAS web services, if I understand correctly. But the OpenMath symbols ontology hardly does more than giving URIs to OpenMath symbols and grouping them by CD -- and thereby giving the queries, problems, and services something they can talk about. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
