[om] A Proposal for extending OpenMath with structure sharing

jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk
Fri Apr 5 10:56:06 CEST 2002

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Michael Kohlhase wrote:
> 1) my original proposal of adding an OMR element (only) to the XML
>    encoding. 
>    [this is equivalent to the OMRSYN proposal of James and does
>     not change the OpenMath standard, only the encoding] 
I believe that the XML encoding is in the standard, so to that extent it 
does change the standard.
> 2) to additionally add an OMRSEM elemement to the encoding AND change the
>    OM standard for objects by allowing DAGs instead of trees explicitly.
> It seems that the consensus is that 1) is relatively safe (encoding only)
> and that 2) would have additional benefits, but is more disruptive. I would
> propose to discuss (and eventually vote on) the two proposals separately.
> Obviously, proposal 2) only makes sense if we also accept 1), so I propose
> that we move on 1). If we talk about 2), we will need somebody to spec out
> the changes to the standard document like I did for 1), and come up with
> some convincing examples of the added value for the OpenMath Standard.
> The concrete syntax of these elements (OMR or OMRSYM) is relatively
> immaterial at the moment. My preference would be to have 
> <OMR semantic="yes" ... /> for OMRSEM and <OMR semantic="no" ... /> for OMRSYN
> (we could make the default value for the attribute 'semantic' to be "yes"),
Don't you meet "no"?
> so that the element <OMR .../> is retained as in my original proposal, and
> we can still add the semantic sharing idea seamlessly afterwards.
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

More information about the Om mailing list