[om] About new XML encoding methods for OpenMath
Paul Libbrecht
paul at activemath.org
Wed May 21 22:55:24 CEST 2003
Michael Kohlhase wrote:
> With respect to the other (radical-namespaces) suggestion, which I did
> mention in my talk I am going back and forth like David. Maybe the way to
> go is to develop both XML encodings, to a point, where we can see where
> they are leading, and then let people vote with their feet.
I think this alternative should only be considered as a kind
"densely-XML-markup" and I am pretty sure it shall take an amount of
time to switch to...
David Carlisle wrote:
> This has been suggested many times (since even before namespaces was a
> REC, if I recall correctly), the main disadvantage is that given such
> an approach one would essentially have to replace OMS by the ANY
> (xsd:any) content model in any DTD (or schema) for openmath.
If this turns out to be real true than I can only think it is of no-use.
Don't XML-Schema-types allow a decent approach for that. Something along
the lines of: "the parameter to the transc_R:exp function has to be of
type real and returns real" which becomes, with a kind of
functor/morphism describing the injection of R in C, "the parameter to
the transc_C:exp function has to be of type complex and returns complex".
This looks all too simplistic and I am almost sure I am burning myself
at the edge of dangerous typing/logical-foundations...
Comments welcome.
Pau
--
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