[om] A Proposal for extending OpenMath with structure sharing

[Michael Kohlhase]

Dear James,

> > However, this does raise the question of what a phrasebook (e.g. for maple)
> > should do upon receiving a syntactically shared OM object. Should it
> > explode the object, just to be sure to adhere to the semantics?
> Worse, since Maple always shares (syntactically), should it export shared, 
> even if it attaches no semantics ot the sharing, since the reader may 
> attach semantics to the sharing.

I am still a bit confused by your example, mainly where the problem lies
(in terms of the responsibility); I can see three possibilities:

1) [Maple] did not get the implementation of subtraction of intervals or the
   semantics of sharing right, i.e. it is a problem of equality like the
   ones you presented in your CALCULEMUS paper.

2) [Interface] There is a problem in the interface of Maple to the outside
   world.

3) There is some problem with the OpenMath semantics, that is only revealed
   by the discussion of the sharing semantics. 

>From the discussion so far I have the feeling that it is 1; in this case it
is not the problem of the OpenMath standard and we should not let the
problem hinder us from proceeding. 

     Michael

--
om at openmath.org  -  general discussion on OpenMath
Post public announcements to om-announce at openmath.org
Automatic list maintenance software at majordomo at openmath.org
Mail om-owner at openmath.org for assistance with any problems