Paul I think that you and David are suggesting fairly close criteria, perhaps just a difference of what is meant by 'interoperability'.
This also raises the question about what in a 'description' of the mathematical meaning, rather than of the syntax and computational semantics, affects interoperability. You wrote -- > As for the OpenMath CDs or MathML chapter 4 descriptions, I just feel > they need to be minimal enough to be interoperable. That sounds like a good rule, but on looking a bit deeper we need to pin down questions such as: interoperable with what systems? and/or what types of system? only exisiting systems? or plausible future systems (eg tutorial assistants)? for each system, what is interoperable and what is not? (sub-questions): what makes a symbol alone (rather than an expression) interoperable? is it any more than (something like) its 'signature'? how strongly, or simply, typed must it be? chris _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
