[om] comments on documents

[Richard Fateman]

Mike Dewar wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> 
>>The documents don't make consistent
>>sense.  It seems from a casual reading, that
>>
>>   OM encoding doesn't specify presentation.
>>   MathML doesn't specify content.
>>
>>Both of these are essentially false, easily observed by
>>(a) the conversion of OM to MathML and to TeX. So OM specifies
>>(or can be used to specify) presentation.
>>
> In that case the stylesheet (or whatever) used to do the conversion is
> what specifies the presentation.  There is nothing intrinsic in the
> OpenMath object or the OpenMath standard which specifies a presentation.


I think this is wrong, as I said to David's note.  If your
OM object specified 2+2, the stylesheet COULD convert this to 4
but this would be, I think, unexpected.


> 
> 
>>(b) MathML has a content component, which could either
>>point to some OM piece or not.
>>
> As far as I know we never said that "MathML doesn't specify content".
> What we said is that MathML has no way of describing the semantics of a
> symbol.  This seems to me to be true.
> 
> 
>>You also claim that OM objects can be
>>
>>* verified as being mathematically sound (or not!)
>>
>>I don't know what this means.  Mathematically well-formed?
>>True?  (1+1=3  might be well-formed but not true).
>>Either provably true or provably not true?  or
>>  (provably true) or not (provably true?   {a tautology).
>>
> It might be better to leave this to the automated reasoning crowd, but
> my understanding of this phrase is that the object is consistent with a
> given set of Axioms.  


I don't know if these are mathematical axioms or syntactic
rules of construction.  If it is mathematical axioms
e.g.  1+1=3 is illegal,
then it is cannot be enforced.
If it is syntactic,  meaning  <foo> and </foo> are
balanced, then the statement is pretty much meaningless.
I think it is just a trivial statement that pertains
to syntax.  It is as though I touted as an advantage
of Lisp that every Lisp program has been verified
as having balanced parentheses.


>  
> 
>>There is a side issue about standardization and how
>>this is done.  One technique used in industry where
>>there are competing technologies is to stamp out
>>competition by attempting to elevate one proposal
>>to be the standard.  Self-praise is no recommendation.
>>To what established international body is the OM
>>standard going to be submitted?  Certainly the OM
>>committee is not sufficient.
>>
> Who is elevating one proposal over another here?  The MathML
> recommendation gives a number of examples where OpenMath is used for
> expressing semantics which are beyond what MathML offers.  The OpenMath
> community advocates presentation MathML or TeX for rendering, depending
> on the context.   Your suggestion that somebody is trying to "elevate"
> their particular standard over somebody elses to be *the* standard is
> simply not true.


I also responded to this from David:  You don't even know
what the competition is.  There are far more widely established
"standards" for math content and rendering. Mathematica for example.


> 
> We have no plans at present to seek formal standardisation for OpenMath
> because it seems unnecessary.  If there was a large community using it
> then that would be another matter but as it stands those of us using it
> are happy with the current semi-formal arrangement.  We are not trying to
> compete with MathML and indeed many of us (including NAG) are actively
> involved in both groups.


Again, you are missing the point.  The point
is that Self praise is no recommendation. Any criticism
of OM (or for that matter MathML!) is likely to be
suppressed on the grounds of irrelevance.

RJF


> 
> Mike. 
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
> delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
> information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
> Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
> --
> 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
> 


--
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