[Om] Mathematical Vernacular in formulae

[Lars Hellström]

Professor James Davenport skrev 2011-01-25 17.42:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Lars Hellström wrote:
>> Michael Kohlhase skrev 2011-01-25 08.46:
>> My gut feeling for the \text part is that this is an alternate markup for
>> some combination of formal symbols, and should be encoded as such, i.e., as
>> the value of some hypothetical altenc/vernacular symbol. Totally ignoring the
>> cd's of symbols, that would make the \text part equivalent something like:
> certainly nice if one can do it, but quite often one uses text becuase
> there aren't standard symbols for what one wants, I fear.

As long as some CD defines the symbol it should be OK. Or is your point that 
OMDOC documents must be able to employ undefined concepts?

>> <OMA>
>>     <OMATTR>
>>       <OMATP>
>>         <OMS cd="altenc" name="vernacular"/>
>>         <OMBIND>
>>           <OMS name="lambda"/>
>>           <OMBVAR>  <OMV name="Clause1"/>  <OMV name="Clause2"/>  </OMBVAR>
>>           <OMA><OMS name="concat-text"/>
>>             <OMV name="Clause1"/>  <OMSTR>  and</OMSTR>  <OMV name="Clause2"/>
>>           </OMA>
>>         </OMBIND>
>>       </OMATP>
>>       <OMS name="logical-and"/>
> By this do you mean the usual<OMS cd="logic1" name="and"/>
> or something else?

The usual "and", yes. (I simply didn't have the time to look up what standard 
CD defines it. Same thing with "set-in" and "lambda". I don't know how well 
"concat-text" can be identified with anything standard.)

>>     </OMATTR>
>>     <OMA><OMS name="set-in"/>
>>       <OMV name="a"/>  <OMV name="T"/>
>>     </OMA>
>>     <OMA>
>>       <OMATTR>
>>         <OMATP>
>>           <OMS cd="altenc" name="vernacular"/>
>>           <OMBIND>
>>             <OMS name="lambda"/>
>>             <OMBVAR>
>>               <OMV name="term1"/>  <OMV name="term2"/>  <OMV name="term3"/>
>>             </OMBVAR>
>>             <OMA><OMS name="concat-text"/>
>>               <OMV name="term1"/>  <OMSTR>  terminates for</OMSTR>
>>               <OMV name="term2"/>  <OMSTR>  with</OMSTR>  <OMV name="term3"/>
>>             </OMA>
>>           </OMBIND>
>>         </OMATP>
>>         <OMS name="terminates-for-with"/>
> And this, of course, is a symbol we don't (currently) have.

But any author using the concept in an OM-enabled document ought to create a 
definition of it if none already exists.

>>       </OMATTR>
>>       <OMV name="P"/>
>>       <OMV name="a"/>
>>       <OMV name="b"/>
>>     </OMA>
>> </OMA>
>>
>> At least for the most common uses of text within math, namely logical
>> conjunctions, this should be the natural way to go as it allows tools
>> ignorant of natural language to process the formula.
>>
>> Lars Hellström
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Om mailing list
>> Om at openmath.org
>> http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Om mailing list
>> Om at openmath.org
>> http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om