{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/344","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/344/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/344/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/344/events","html_url":"https://github.com/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/344","id":163727398,"number":344,"title":"Why axiom/@for but not assertion/@for?","user":{"login":"jbs1","id":6561806,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6561806?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1","html_url":"https://github.com/jbs1","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":1,"created_at":"2016-07-04T18:28:58Z","updated_at":"2016-07-04T18:28:58Z","closed_at":null,"body":"_migrated from Trac, where originally posted by **clange** on 20-Aug-2010 9:34am_\n\nIs there a good reason why we have `axiom/@for`, pointing to a symbol(s) but not `assertion/@for`?  Conversely, is there a reason for having them at all?  At least when they have an FMP the question what an axiom or assertion is \"for\" can easily be answered by looking into the FMP and identifying OMS references to symbols from the same theory.  Or am I mistaken?  (OK, when we only have CMPs without `term`s, the `@for` link may be helpful.)"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/comments/230338758","html_url":"https://github.com/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/344#issuecomment-230338758","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OMdoc/OMDoc/issues/344","id":230338758,"user":{"login":"jbs1","id":6561806,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6561806?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1","html_url":"https://github.com/jbs1","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jbs1/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-07-04T18:28:58Z","updated_at":"2016-07-04T18:28:58Z","body":"_migrated from Trac, where originally posted by **kohlhase** on 22-Aug-2010 12:30pm_\n\nyou are completely right, the @for attribute is quite spurious. The information should be determined differently. We should probably drop this attribute for axiom. \n"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"jbs1"}}