[om] MathML draft Notes available for review

Professor James Davenport jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk
Tue Jul 29 23:18:31 CEST 2003

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Bill Naylor wrote:
> I have just read the Note "Units in MathML", I must say that there is a
> lot more to the area than I had appreciated!
> Stan, is it envisaged that these notes will become a part of the MathML
> standard, or will they be part of a sort of MathML add-on, if the former,
> then I guess that the MathML compliance core CD group should be extended
> to cover units, if the later, it would still be good to have the OpenMath
> units conform to the MathML ones. So it seems that the (rather naive) way
> in which they are treated in units_imperial1 and units_imperial2 should be
> altered to allow arguments, similar to the way in which for example
> 'contexts' are added to the MathML definitionURLs. This might also be a
> way of deaing with multiplication factors.
Conversely, I think it would be better if MathML at least allowed the 
OpenMath base since this automatically (by FMP) includes all conversion 
factors etc. However, there is a problem with presentation, and it might 
be nice to formalise a mechanism for associating presentation  with 
OpenMath symbols.
> I think it is important to make units precise in OpenMath, since I have
> heard the example of the Mars lander fiasco used quite a few times as a
> reason for OpenMath. If units are not made precise in OpenMath, then this
> sort of destroys that reason!
I'm not sure I follow this. If OpenMath had been used, then the fiasco 
could not have happened, since the OpenMath would specify the precise unit 
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