[Om3] CD-review little report

[Paul Libbrecht]

Stan,

are you asking me why I removed the text-formulæ? It seems so but I am  
not sure.

If yes I can easily answer:
The formula int f  below is a perfect example: I would always have  
understood it, until having encountered Maple's syntax (which might  
well never happens in today's users' life), as being the integer part  
of f... (that was called floor(f) in some syntaxes, but we were  
talking about calculus weren't we?).

Linear syntax is ambiguous, this is well known. It can be very  
practical in a presentation but either in context (almost impossible  
in CD-presentations I feel) or with extra support for disambiguation  
(different modalities of display, disambiguation of symbols' meanings,  
term highlighting...).

paul


Le 18-sept.-08 à 16:08, Stan Devitt a écrit :
> I am puzzled.   Have you not seen things like  int f + int g =  int  
> f +
> g  in K-14 ?
> Is this not a case of unary Int ?
> Why would we deprecate such a functionality from content math ?
>
> I am probably missing something here.  My apologies but I simply do  
> not
> have the band witdh
> To dive in more deeply right now, but this caught my eye.
>
> Stan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-math-request at w3.org [mailto:member-math-request at w3.org]  
> On
> Behalf Of Paul Libbrecht
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:45 PM
> To: Math Working Group WG; om3 at openmath.org
> Subject: CD-review little report
>
> Hello CD-friends,
>
> I tried a to review the current OpenMath3 CDs under the spirit of:
> - making sure a simple description is there within the Description
> element
> - making sufficient examples are MathML-compatible
>
>
>
> - limit1
>   - limits: I did not touch any example thus far, we are not yet clear
> about the condition element I'm afraid but I see James has started to
> select examples using MML examples... but I don't see this in the
> output. Also they seem to be speaking to different languages.
> Is this a current work of James?
>   - removed unary in limits1/limit... it doesn't seem strictly
> necessary (and is rather not k14)
>   - I have rephrased "takes no argument" to "cannot be applied"
>
>  more comments in there as XML comments... we're missing ednote in
> here, sharply!
> Is it working somewhere? In which fields?
>
> - calculus1:
>   - same for unary
>   - added some chosen properties... not sure the OpenMath will survive
> into the MathML-spec
>   - tried to make sure there's a word description for any property or
> example. I wonder if the "linear syntax" is something we should keep
> here (but it could be generated!)
> - I stopped before integrals
>
>
> thanks
>
> paul

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2203 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://openmath.org/pipermail/om3/attachments/20080925/7a50ea49/attachment.bin