[om] Re: comments on documents

[Richard Fateman]

Do I understand then that the representation
for an expression in OM is really
an expression plus a style sheet and that
the style sheet could, for example, be
equivalent to "invoke Maple to simplify
and compute a display"?

Do you mean phrasebook, not stylesheet?

Regarding 1/x having different OM syntax depending
on how it should look.... I guess that you
are free to agree with me, it is just that
  I wonder why you call this "semantic meaning" [sic].
.........

I think it is appropriate when responding
to my posting, to quote my posting, not
reiterating
your (refuted) refutation of my 2nd previous
posting.  To remind you,  I was
complaining about your inconsistency with this
quote from OM on the web:

" MathML deals principally with the presentation of mathematical 
objects, while OpenMath is solely concerned with their semantic meaning 
or content. "

It seems to me that it contradicts what
you say.  And what you say again in
this message below.  You should perhaps offer to
rewrite the OM document.

Perhaps it should say

MathML deals with the presentation of mathematical objects
and also to some extent their meaning.  OpenMath does the
same except using different markers, and with a different
emphasis, more on content.  OM can be extended by the publishing of
content dictionaries. MathML can be altered by appeal
to W3C.   The display of either MathML
or OM can be altered by style sheets. (Is this all true?)

Perhaps somewhere else (FAQ?) you could ask and answer:

Why then OM?
Some people don't trust W3C to do it right.

But if they are the same people, how is that?
Uh, who pays your salary?


RJF




jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk wrote:

> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Richard Fateman wrote:
> 
>>jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The recent thread on OpenMath caught me while marking: here's my
>>>summary and two cents worth. All quotes are from fateman unless
>>>otherwise attributed.
>>>>From fateman at cs.berkeley.edu Sat May 18 17:27:32 2002
>>>
>>>
>>>>> OM encoding doesn't specify presentation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>I think David Carlisle refuted this one. OpenMath allows a user to
>>>specify presentation in any way they want from the OpenMath.
>>>
> Read again: OpenMath allows the user to specify. You can write any 
> stylesheet or equivalent converter you want. You can put as much or as 
> little algebraic processing inthat as you want.
> If you wish, you can write a styelsheet that prints
> <OMOBJ>
>   <OMATTR>
>     <OMATP>
>       <OMS cd="fatemanstylesheet" name="displaydivide"/>
>       <OMS cd="logic1" name="true"/>
>     </OMATP>
>     <OMA>
>       <OMS name="divide" cd="arith1"/>
>       <OMS name="one" cd="alg1"/>
>       <OMV name="x"/>
>     </OMA>
>   </OMATTR>
> </OMOBJ>
> one way, and the same thing with "false" another way. Of course, that 
> stylesheet still neds rules as to what to do if that attribute isn't 
> present. 
> 
>>So then you are rejecting the OM supporters who seem to think that
>>there is only one representation for 1/x and it is the same
>>
> I don't recall anyone saying that there was only one possible 
> representation: for a start the numerator can be either <OMS name="one" 
> cd="alg1"/> or <OMI>1</OMI>
> 
>>as the representation for
>>    1
>>-------
>>    x
>>
> No the point is that the symbol "divide" carries no information one way or 
> the other.
> 
> James
> --
> 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