[Om3] binary vs n-ary relations

[Professor James Davenport]

On Wed, September 24, 2008 9:32 pm, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> Le 24-sept.-08 à 18:17, Professor James Davenport a écrit :
>> Michael: I fear you're out-numbered.
>
> Well, careful James, I'm afraid MathML-2 spec counts as many voices
> here...
Possibly.
> Let's be pragmatic, how much are we breaking if we claim that strict-
> MathML's relation symbols are binary only?
I would hope nothing, but I worry about the cross-reference to 4.4.10
from, e.g. file:///D:/MML3-draft/appendixc.html#cds.eq (my version is
fairly old). 'eq' is NOT an associative operator.
> This can certainly be part of the pragmatic to strict translation right?
This would be an excellent idea.

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