Bryce, This an interesting thread... quite a pan-galactic one.
I tend to agree with the vision described in: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200812/msg00016.html (I haven't read attachments yet) One seems to be able to propose even a lot more with the web at hand.One thing that really bothers me is that, on the one hand, you wish to have a universal representation of mathematical objects and, on the other side, you propose to carry a *single* implementation.
- why single? (I guess the answer is "because it's the simple way" but that doesn't convince me... in many bizarre cases alternate implementations are useful
- why not hope that arbitrary FMPs of OpenMath CDs can make it that tools devise implementations that satisfy these FMPs? (note: devise does not mean execute, at least, not in all cases)
The big big big issue with a single implementation is the "topology of symbols" which makes it that if you specify your implementation P in a document you send me I have to take your implementation and cannot trust my software that my implementation is also applicable: it makes the whole math organized as a tree with central things without freedom.
I wonder if you don't wish to port this to [email protected] which is slightly broader than om3.
paul Le 15-déc.-08 à 23:58, Bryce L Nordgren a écrit :
I am indulging in a thought experiment and I was wondering if I could enlist your aid, at least to determine whether I am barking up the correct tree or not. The central question is: "How can an office application suite better manage mathematical information in an integrated fashion?" Succinctly, I suggest that all occurrences of mathematical objects have a uniform representation so that cutting and pasting works between presentation, text, and spreadsheet docs. I also suggest that the formula document (currently undefined) be defined as a workbook modeled after the CDGroup and each sheet is a CD. An outline can be found here, if you're interested: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200812/msg00016.htmlSo here's where I would like to ask your help: I'm fairly new to OpenMath/MathML and I'm exploring how to define simple named functions with a formal parameter list, which can later be used (e.g., a symbol). I've written a brief summary of what seems to me to be the most important concepts, given examples of most of the concepts, and culminated in the writing of a CD containing a really dumb function called "myfunc". Could I get someone here to look at this and see if I'm on the right track?One thing I did note is that there does not appear to be an orthodox way to specify a symbol's implementation, even when the expression can be completely defined using other symbols. (e.g., the equation implementing Planck's law for blackbody radiation) Yes you can include it as a "formal mathematical property", but there can be more than one of those, and a function can only have a single implementation. The attachment explains this concern in more detail...<OpenMathFunction.pdf>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
