[Om] Interesting review of OpenMath

[Manfred Riem]

One question comes to my mind after reading this. Did they

contact anyone about OpenMath / Content MathML?

 

I only see conclusions based on very narrow observations.

 

Regards,

Manfred

 

From: om-bounces at openmath.org [mailto:om-bounces at openmath.org] On Behalf Of
Christoph LANGE
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 9:41 AM
To: OpenMath
Subject: [Om] Interesting review of OpenMath

 

Dear OpenMath community,

in the context of the FMathL project
(http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/FMathL.html) - which some of you may
remember from a talk at CICM 2009 - OpenMath and Content MathML have
been reviewed for their utility w.r.t. the FMathL goals:

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/FMathL/openmath-limitations.pdf
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/FMathL/content-mathml-limitations.pdf

Some of the comments are IMHO inappropriate; for example they criticize
the language and CDs of OM/CMML for not being close enough to
mathematical paper notation and not concise enough, whereas the main
objective for OM/CMML is machine-comprehensibility, and authoring should
hopefully be supported by software.  Other comments could, however, be
valuable.

In a nutshell, as far as I understand it, the FMathL vision is so big
that no existing language is adequate to it.  FMathL is envisioned as a
universal mathematics language both comprehensible to humans (targeting
working mathematicians) and machines.

Cheers,

Christoph

--
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype
duke4701

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3283 - Release Date: 11/27/10

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://openmath.org/pipermail/om/attachments/20101127/bdbf0f4a/attachment.htm