On Sun, February 22, 2009 9:32 pm, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > Abbreviated symbols are definitely a matter of input and output and > not matter of semantic to my taste. However the need to declare a new > symbol often has it's own reasons... merely stating that it should be > handled by something else is not really a good answer. The way I see it that there would be no real need for miles_per_hour if it didn't have a "non-standard" abbreviation, so whatever abbreviation one had (outside semantics) would still need somesemantics to connect to. > There's a need to declare a symbol as "the same as, if you want to > ignore this part of the world". > The reason I suggested OWL at the time was that it does have abilities > to declare that two classes are to be considered the specialization or > the same thing provided you can see such a statement. > > I absolutely know that FMPs can declare that one construct is equal to > another but the geometry of facts is different. I think the right > question that one should be able to answer is "what to do if I meet > symbol bla-bla and can't do anything with it". > > - an FMP that states that bla-bla is bla would be wrong, it would mean > that bla-bla has no finer semantic > - an FMP that states that bla-bla is a specialization of bla would > allow the processor to ignore bla-bla and replace all occurrences of > OMS-bla-bla to OMS-bla > > Probably some other discovery effects should be analyzed. What we really need is a taxonomy of FMPs:-)
More seriously, we could discuss this is Grand Bend. How do you see LandauIn fitting in here? James Davenport Visiting Full Professor, University of Waterloo Otherwise: Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology and Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
