[Om] Content-dictionary notations draft

[W Naylor]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Paul Libbrecht wrote:

> 
> Le 22 mars 07 à 12:08, W Naylor a écrit :
> 
> > One other typo, presumably the second example should be
> 
> thanks, fixed (with another correction!).
> 
> > A couple of points which don't appear to be addressed on the web site but
> > I did discuss at some length at MKM 2001
> > (http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/about/conferences/MKM2001/
> > Proceedings/naylor.pdf)
> 
> This one is not searchable unfortunately... it would be nice if you had
> another. The MathML-one is well searchable.

I have a html version on my personal site:
http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~wn/Papers/MetaMML/metaMML+/index.html

> 
> I'll respond to 1/ here... leaving 2/ for another mail.
> 
> Your template function idea is nice and useful, for sure, but it would rely on
> one enormous unknown: a specification of evaluation of OpenMath (somewhat like
> the NMC is approaching).

I had assumed that this could be performed by some CA system, e.g. Maple 
can understand OpenMath to a certain extent, see:

An Extensible OpenMath-Maple Translator, Clare So, S. Huerter and S. Watt, 

11th Annual East Coast Computer Algebra Day
Also I did some work on making Aldor understand OpenMath:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-3-540-37104-5/?sortorder=asc&p_o=10
From Untyped to Polymorphically Typed Objects in Mathematical Web Services

I guess that some attribute would be required saying what was required to 
process (or what had processed, depending on which side of the translation 
we were looking from) the template functions.

> If one does have such computation facilities one has most probably also types
> to help in rendering. Both appear to me as highly-interesting but not
> standardizable yet... am I pessimistic ??

isn't that what we are trying to do :-)

Bill

> 
> paul
> 
> 
> > and MathML 2002 (http://www.mathmlconference.org/2002/presentations/
> > naylor/)
> > are:
> > 1/ How do we deal with parts of the notation which depend on parts of the
> > prototype (the OpenMath) in a non trivial manner (i.e. need some
> > calculation to determine what to put in the presentation). For
> > example the super-script in the partial derivative notation
> > 
> > ?
> >  d
> > ----- f(x)  in this example, we might expect ? = x + y
> > d  d
> > x  y
> > 
> > My solution then was to use 'template functions' (specified in OpenMath),
> > I still stick by this solution, though of course it is not normative.
> > 
> > 2/ The second point is to do with nary functions, even-though these are
> > considered I believe that their treatment is oversimplified. What
> > happens,
> > for example, if there are parts of the presentation which have some
> > implicit nature, but also some dependant nature, e.g. the 0 above and
> > below the diagonal of a diagonal matrix, what about the below diagonal
> > elements of a skew matrix, again my solution was using template functions
> > (as indexing functions, and a combination of this and solution 1 would
> > work for the second example). These solutions are described in the second
> > paper, but again not normative.
> 
> 

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
-
-                  Dr. W.A. Naylor
-
-                  http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/~wn
-
-                  work tel: +44 1225 386183
-
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*