[om] Re: Bugs in OpenMath standard draft 3

[Bill Naylor]

I have noticed a bug in the example in section 4.1.3 for the new 'OMR
element. I shall assume that the textual representation is correct viz.:

application(f,application(f,application(f,a,a),application(f,a,a)),application(f,application(f,a,a),application(f,a,a)))

in that case the XML representation is incorrect. I would suggest:
  <OMOBJ>
    <OMA>
      <OMV name="f"/>
      <OMA>
        <OMV name="f"/>
        <OMA>
          <OMV name="f"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
        </OMA>
        <OMA>
          <OMV name="f"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
        </OMA>
      </OMA>
      <OMA>
        <OMV name="f"/>
        <OMA>
          <OMV name="f"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
        </OMA>
        <OMA>
          <OMV name="f"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
        </OMA>
      </OMA>
    </OMA>
  </OMOBJ>

for the unshared rep. and:

  <OMOBJ>
    <OMA>
      <OMV name="f"/>
      <OMA id="t1">
        <OMV name="f"/>
        <OMA id="t11">
          <OMV name="f"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
          <OMV name="a"/>
        </OMA>
        <OMR xlink:href="t11"/>
      </OMA>
      <OMR xlink:href="t1"/>
    </OMA>
  </OMOBJ>

for the shared form,

cheers,

Bill

--
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