[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote -- > Send Om3 mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3 > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Om3 digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: three avenues for the condition elements (Michael Kohlhase) > 2. Re: three avenues for the condition elements > (Professor James Davenport) > 3. Re: CD group and signature markup naming issues (Christoph LANGE) > 4. Re: CD group and signature markup naming issues (David Carlisle) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:09:13 +0100 > From: Michael Kohlhase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Om3] three avenues for the condition elements > To: Professor James Davenport <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: OM3 Mailing list <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Dear all, > > we should make progress on this, I have made a doodle for deciding on a > teleconference date, please give me your preferences at > > http://www.doodle.com/txbc7ez6gt5ahkzm > > The earlier in the week we talk the better. > > Michael > > Professor James Davenport wrote: > > On Sat, October 25, 2008 5:17 am, Michael Kohlhase wrote: > > > >> the MathML WG has to bring out the next working draft of the MathML3 > >> > > recommendation and we have a code freeze on November 6. Since this is > > the last working draft before the "last call" stage of MathML3, it would > > be good to have resolved the question whether the <condition> element > > belongs into strict MathML or pragmatic. Therefore I would ask you to > > give your opinions about the resolution ASAP. I will organize a > > > >> teleconfere later in the coming week or early in the week of the 6. > >> > > where we take a decision. > > A good idea. I apologise for the delay in not following up on the teleon > > of 10th - as usual I was overtaken by teaching before I had a chance to > > finish the follow-up - I attach the current state for what it's worth. > > [second thoughts - it wil probably fall foul of the length limit: I attach > > the LaTeX, and the PDF (which may be further updated if I get a chance > > today), is at http://staff.bath.ac.uk/masjhd/Conditions-JHD.pdf] > > > >> Paul Libbrecht wrote: > >> > >>> (warning: this text contains unicode character) > >>> #1 condition element > >>> Basically add, in OpenMath and strict MathML, an element called > >>> > > condition or omcond that mimics the current condition element. > > > >>> #2 condition symbol > >>> Invent a new symbol called condition which would do a very similar > >>> > > function. > > > >>> For example, if it was called c, one would write a conditional > >>> function as > >>> ??.x,y: c(x ?? y, x / (x-y) ) > >>> > > My fundamental objection to MathML's condition, which I think applies to > > both #1 and #2, is that its presence affects the semantics of the > > surrounding objects. Indeed, I do not even no of a formal statement about > > how far its influence might spread: it is sufficient to inspect all the > > direct children of X for a condition element, or must one delve deeper? > > > >>> #3 conditional symbol variants > >>> For each binder-like symbol, add a variant symbol which does accept an > >>> > > extra argument, the condition. The function above would be written: > > > >>> ??.x,y: x ?? y, x / (x-y) > >>> > > To do this neatly, one would have to scrap the rule that OMBIND only takes > > one 'ordinary' child, but this, I think, is a small price to pay. Indeed, > > if it is felt to be too high, one could add OMBINDCOND, with two > > 'prdinary' children, the first as in OMBIND and the second the condition. > > This would rescue MK's DEFINTCOND from the objections in my attached note. > > > > James Davenport > > Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology > > Formerly RAE Coordinator and Undergraduate Director of Studies, CS Dept > > Lecturer on CM30070, 30078, 50209, 50123, 50199 > > Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath > > OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor > > IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication > > > > > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase, Office: Research 1, Room 62 > Professor of Computer Science Campus Ring 12, > School of Engineering & Science D-28759 Bremen, Germany > Jacobs University Bremen* tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kwarc.info/kohlhase > skype: m.kohlhase * International University Bremen until Feb. 2007 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: m_kohlhase.vcf > Type: text/x-vcard > Size: 320 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : > http://openmath.org/pipermail/om3/attachments/20081031/dc4fd497/attachment-0001.vcf > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:58:05 -0000 (UTC) > From: "Professor James Davenport" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Om3] three avenues for the condition elements > To: "Michael Kohlhase" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: OM3 Mailing list <[email protected]>, Professor James Davenport > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > > On Fri, October 31, 2008 7:09 pm, Michael Kohlhase wrote: > > we should make progress on this, I have made a doodle for deciding on a > > teleconference date, please give me your preferences at > > > > http://www.doodle.com/txbc7ez6gt5ahkzm > Done. > > The earlier in the week we talk the better. > Agreed. > I hope everyine has the complete analysis of Appendex C: I'll try to do > chapter 4 over the weekend. > > James Davenport > Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology > Formerly RAE Coordinator and Undergraduate Director of Studies, CS Dept > Lecturer on CM30070, 30078, 50209, 50123, 50199 > Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath > OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor > IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:23:10 +0100 > From: Christoph LANGE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Om3] CD group and signature markup naming issues > To: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear David, dear all, > > On Thursday 30 October 2008 23:44:46 David Carlisle wrote: > > > what was the design rationale for having different namespaces and > > > different element names for the same metadata markup in CDs, CD groups, > > > and signature dictionaries? > > > > This seems to be a fairly natural consequence of the decision to have > > a separate namespace for cd groups and sts. > > Sorry, I didn't have the fact that we have separate namespaces for these fully > on my mind when issuing my objections. Maybe I was biased by OMDoc here, as > in OMDoc all those different things are in the same namespace and can even > coexist in the same document -- but I'm not implying that this would make > sense in the OpenMath case. > > > STS is deliberately kept at a distance from the core OM, it is not the only > > possible type system for OM, and so should not have a privileged position of > > using the CD namespace. > > I agree. > > > > It looks like poor man's XML namespaces, > > > > Not sure what you mean by this. As it happens the basic design of > > CDGroups etc predates namespaces, but I don't think the use of > > multiple namespaces in each file (which appears to be what you are > > suggesting) is an improvement. > > Now I have to rephrase my original message. One thing that actually struck me > was the fact that the local names of the elements in different namespaces also > have a reference to the namespace. Why not just cd:ReviewDate and > cds:ReviewDate, or cd:Name and cdg:Name? XML-syntactically that wouldn't be a > problem, and I think that the human author does not need additional mnemonics > like the CDGroup in CDGroupName, as he knows anyway what he is editing, be it > a CD, a CD group, or a signature dictionary. > > > CDGroups are the basic of the navigation construct of the CD area of > > openmath.org, why do you say they are infrequently used? > > Oh, of course? What I rather meant was: Does anybody else except ourselves > use them? People "out there" use CDs, and I think they also use signatures, > but do they maintain their own CD groups? > > Cheers, > > Christoph > > -- > Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701 > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 197 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. > Url : > http://openmath.org/pipermail/om3/attachments/20081031/b8fb09c4/attachment-0001.pgp > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:23:05 GMT > From: David Carlisle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Om3] CD group and signature markup naming issues > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > Now I have to rephrase my original message. One thing that actually struck > > me > > was the fact that the local names of the elements in different namespaces > > also > > have a reference to the namespace. Why not just cd:ReviewDate and > > cds:ReviewDate, or cd:Name and cdg:Name? > > If the namespace spec had been done 2 years earlier than it was, then we > could have > > <m:row> instead of <m:mrow> > <om:A> instead of <om:OMA> > <cd:Name> instead of <cd:CDName> > > But the fact is that the namespace spec came out late (due in part to a > very acrimonious development cycle:-) and the basic naming scheme for > openmath, openmath cds, mathml, were all fixed pre-namespace and > namespaces just layered on top. In a different universe it could have > been different but history is what it is... > > > David > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England > and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: > Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is > powered by MessageLabs. > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Om3 mailing list > [email protected] > http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3 > > > End of Om3 Digest, Vol 15, Issue 1 > ********************************** > _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
