Brainstorming a Review Mechanism

First published 2026-03-14

Currently content is entered into the database and there's attribution (authorship) but no mechanism for review.

Review is necessary because the correlation between Latex and SymPy is manual. The following is brainstorming and hasn't been enacted.

The review process would be randomized to present a similarity question. For example, a latex expression and a Sympy expression. Another example would be a latex expression and a symbol. The user then provides a vote as to whether these are likely matched or mismatched.

Because the node content of expressions and symbols is mutable and not versioned, the "this has been reviewed" needs to indicate what specifically was reviewed. An expression node has properties

• latex_lhs
• relation
• latex_rhs
• sympy_lhs
• sympy_rhs
• author
• date
• ID

For reviews of expressions, a new node is needed: ":a_node:review" with properties

• reviewer_name
• date
• attestation that latex_lhs is same as sympy_lhs
• attestation that latex_rhs is same as sympy_rhs
• ID

If the latex or sympy of an expression is edited then the associated attestations should be deleted.

Symbols, Relations, and Operations nodes have

• latex
• author
• date
• ID

and are connected to expression nodes by "IS_COMPRISED_OF". The attestation would be a property of the edge.

• attestation that (latex_lhs or latex_rhs) does contain symbol_latex
• author
• date

If the latex of a symbol/relation/operation is edited then the associated attestations should be deleted