Digitisation, Representation, and Formalisation Digital Libraries of Mathematics
- 282 Downloads
One of the main tasks of the mathematical knowledge management community must surely be to enhance access to mathematics on digital systems. In this paper we present a spectrum of approaches to solving the various problems inherent in this task, arguing that a variety of approaches is both necessary and useful. The main ideas presented are about the differences between digitised mathematics, digitally represented mathematics and formalised mathematics. Each has its part to play in managing mathematical information in a connected world. Digitised material is that which is embodied in a computer file, accessible and displayable locally or globally. Represented material is digital material in which there is some structure (usually syntactic in nature) which maps to the mathematics contained in the digitised information. Formalised material is that in which both the syntax and semantics of the represented material, is automatically accessible. Given the range of mathematical information to which access is desired, and the limited resources available for managing that information, we must ensure that these resources are applied to digitise, form representations of or formalise, existing and new mathematical information in such a way as to extract the most benefit from the least expenditure of resources. We also analyse some of the various social and legal issues which surround the practical tasks.
KeywordsDigital Library Mathematical Knowledge Theorem Prove Computer Algebra System Mathematical Text
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- [AA01]M. Athale and R. Athale. Exchange of mathematical information on the web: Present and Future. In Buchberger and Caprotti [BC01].Google Scholar
- [APSC+01]A. Asperti, L. Padovani, C. Sacerdoti Coen, G. Ferruccio,, and I. Schena. Mathematical Knowledge Management in HELM. In Buchberger and Caprotti [BC01].Google Scholar
- [AS72]M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. Handbook of mathematical functions with formulas, graphs and mathematical tables. Dover, 1972.Google Scholar
- [AZ99]M. Aigner and G. M. Ziegler. Proofs from THE BOOK. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
- [Bab23]C. Babbage. On the Theoretical Principles of the Machinery for Calculating Tables. Edin Phtl Jrl, 8:122–128, 1823.Google Scholar
- [BB+96]B. Barras, S. Boutin, et al. The Coq Proof Assistant Reference Manual (Version 6.1). Technical report, INRIA, 1996. Available on-line with Coq distribution from ftp://ftp.inria.fr.
- [BB01]P. Baumgartner and A. Blohm. Automated Deduction Techniques for the Management of Personal Documents (Extended Abstract). In Buchberger and Caprotti [BC01]Google Scholar
- [BC01]B. Buchberger and O. Caprotti, editors. MKM 2001 (First International Workshop on Mathematical Knowledge Management). http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/conferences/MKM2001/Proceedings, 2001.
- [Bor01]J. M. Borwein. The International Math Union’s Electronic Initiatives (Extended Abstract). In Buchberger and Caprotti [BC01].Google Scholar
- [CA+86]R. L. Constable, S. F. Allen, et al. Implementing Mathematics with the NuPrl Proof Development System. Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
- [Dav01]J. Davenport. Mathematical Knowledge Representation (Extended Abstract). In Buchberger and Caprotti [BC01].Google Scholar
- [Dew00b]M. Dewar. Special Issue on OPENMATH. ACM SIGSAM Bulletin, 34(2), June 2000.Google Scholar
- [Fro02]M. Froumentin. Mathematics on the Web with MathML. http://www.w3.org/People/maxf/papers/iamc.ps, 2002.
- [GM93]M. J. C. Gordon and T. F. Melham, editors. Introduction to HOL. CUP, 1993.Google Scholar
- [Har71]M. Hart. Project gutenberg, 1971. http://www.gutenberg.org.
- [Har00]J. Harrison. Formal verification of floating point trigonometric functions. Springer-Verlag LNCS 1954, 2000.Google Scholar
- [JB01]M. Jones and N. Beagrie. Preservation Management of Digital Materials (A Handbook). The British Library, 2001.Google Scholar
- [Kea00]T. Kealey. More is less. Nature, 405(279), May 2000.Google Scholar
- [Knu79]D. Knuth. TEX and METAFONT: New directions in Typesetting. AMS and Digital Press, 1979.Google Scholar
- [Koh01]M. Kohlhase. OMDoc: Towards an Internet Standard for the Administration, Distribution and Teaching of Mathematical Knowledge. In J. A. Campbell and E. Roanes-Lozano, editors, Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence and Symbolic Computation 2000, pages 32–52. Springer LNCS 1930, 2001.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
- [Lam94]L. Lamport. LATEX: A Document Preparation System, 2/E. Addison Wesley, second edition, 1994.Google Scholar
- [Loz01]D. Lozier. The NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions Project. In Buchberger and Caprotti [BC01].Google Scholar
- [McC62]J. et al. McCarthy. LISP 1.5 Programmer’s Manual. MIT Press, 1962.Google Scholar
- [Mic01]G. O. Michler. How to Build a Prototype for a Distributed Mathematics Archive Library. In Buchberger and Caprotti [BC01].Google Scholar
- [ML84]P. Martin-Löf. Intuitionistic Type Theory. Bibliopolis, 1984.Google Scholar
- [Mos97]P. D. Mosses. CoFI: The Common Framework Initiative for Algebraic Specification and Development. pages 115–137. Springer LNCS 1214, 1997.Google Scholar
- [MY01]B. R. Miller and A. Youssef. Technical Aspects of the Digital Library of Mathematical Functions Dreams and Realities. In Buchberger and Caprotti [BC01].Google Scholar
- [SOR]N. Shankar, S. Owre, and J. M. Rushby. The PVS Proof Checker: A Reference Manual. Computer Science Lab, SRI International.Google Scholar
- [Try80]A. Trybulec. The Mizar Logic Information Language, volume 1 of Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric. Bialystok, 1980.Google Scholar