On Tue, March 24, 2009 5:14 pm, David Carlisle wrote: >> So the "official" P->S will be frozen at the same time? > yes the whole point of the pragmatic->strict stuff that it is in (and in > many ways forms the bulk of) the specification of Content MathML in > Chapter 4. This was thought to be preferable to the OM2 situation where > we _said_ that OM2 and MML2 were aligned but the description of the > alignment was in a pdf note on the OM site, with no official standing. > In MathML3 the idea was to make it part of the specification. That has > advantages and disdvantages as you see... That's not quite the same thing (fortunately). If Chapter 4 is merely A translation Prag->S (which is what I would hope) then evolving OM will let us improve a "best efforts" translation, which would be a nice position to be in. >> Irrespective of this particular issue, that would be a pity, as there >> are >> currently, as I see it, bits of potential pragmatic (with no current use >> cases) that I, at least,do not understand. > > The specifcation in the current text is in words not as runnable code > the plan is to fill in some of the gaps to make it as defined as > possible but given the flexibility of mathml markup if you combine > things in interesting ways there are likely to be still cases where the > mapping to strict is underdefined. It may be that that gives you enough > room for manoeuvre, or not? However we don't want to leave too much of > the mapping from pragmatic to strict undefined as that negates the whole > point of the restructuring of chapter4, where the intention is to > > a) say via schema what's legal as mathml Which essentially means, as I understand it, that 'condition' is either IN or OUT, irrespective of CDs. > b) say by mapping to strict mathml (aka openmath in mathml synax) what > those constructs "mean". Which doesn't stop a "best efforts" mapping evolving as OM evolves, as long as the evolution is upwards-compatible (and OM never deletes a symbol, so this should be feasible). > so wherever we leave the mapping to strict undefined we are saying that > some construct is legal mathml but has no defined meaning. Clearly we > don't want to do that too often. Agreed, but there were certainly a few uses of 'condition' in MML2 that I couldn't assign any sensible meaning to.
James Davenport Visiting Full Professor, University of Waterloo Otherwise: Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology and Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor and Programme Chair, OpenMath 2009 IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
