-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
think about James' proposed classification of CDS and use on website #47
Comments
Apologies if what I am about to write has been already discussed during the workshop.
I am not at all sure that renaming the classification keywords adds anything concrete towards that goal. Recall that the mechanism of CDs came about before the "semantic web" was even a concept - so let us ask the usual question, what would we use now? Does OpenMath have something to contribute to efforts from linguists like BabelNet (which I just tested to see whether they had a mathematics ontology)? and viceversa, how/where do we integrate their work into ours? |
I think that even though CDs predate the semantic web, they are very compatible (we just have to clarify). But they give us something the semantic web does not: normative vocabularies (instead of just generated/suggested ones. So I would do CDs just like we did (modulo syntax, extensions, and a few other niggles). In essence, CDs are the normative glossary part of OMS (which is the foundation of semantics in OM. |
But I think that Olga's point (and I think we should discuss this more; just not here) misses what I wanted to discuss here. James' remark about the classification of CDs "Supported/Contributed/External", was not "normative", i.e. "written into the CDs", but administrative for managing and presenting them on the web site. Now that we have extended CD groups to allow inclusion (see OpenMath/OMSTD#59), we could just use that as an admin mechanism. We could have CD groups |
This above was my point and I apologize if it was not the right place to bring it up. I was probably hinting at the fact that for Official CDs we ought to do better if we want the CDs to be used and serve as a proof of concept to attract more CDs - In this sense, github is acting as an application supporting every CDs as a renderer and this is a discussion of how to rework, using github, the CD submission workflow. About using "supported" as a term, I find it is confusing, especially if you read the compliance section where we speak about applications supporting CDs. |
On the OM Workshop in Edinburgh we had a discussion on classifying CDs that should take over the old "Official/Exerimental/private/obsolete" classification.
If I remember correctly, James proposed to classify into CDs "Supported/Contributed/External", where
Internally on the CDs repository we already have the External/Contrib distinction via folders. And we should really be collecting/developing external CD sources and referencing them on the web site.
Actually O/E/P/O is in the OM2 standard, so we can do little to change that, but in the web site, we can group CDs
We should discuss this (the Workshop also decided that "getting more/a credible set of CDs) is of the highest priority for OpenMath in the current year.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: