[Om3] Om3 Digest, Vol 15, Issue 1
Chris Rowley
C.A.Rowley at open.ac.uk
Wed Nov 5 23:14:26 CET 2008
om3-request at openmath.org wrote --
> Send Om3 mailing list submissions to
> om3 at openmath.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> om3-request at openmath.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> om3-owner at openmath.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Om3 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: three avenues for the condition elements (Michael Kohlhase)
> 2. Re: three avenues for the condition elements
> (Professor James Davenport)
> 3. Re: CD group and signature markup naming issues (Christoph LANGE)
> 4. Re: CD group and signature markup naming issues (David Carlisle)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:09:13 +0100
> From: Michael Kohlhase <m.kohlhase at jacobs-university.de>
> Subject: Re: [Om3] three avenues for the condition elements
> To: Professor James Davenport <jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk>
> Cc: OM3 Mailing list <om3 at openmath.org>
> Message-ID: <490B57D9.3090508 at jacobs-university.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Dear all,
>
> we should make progress on this, I have made a doodle for deciding on a
> teleconference date, please give me your preferences at
>
> http://www.doodle.com/txbc7ez6gt5ahkzm
>
> The earlier in the week we talk the better.
>
> Michael
>
> Professor James Davenport wrote:
> > On Sat, October 25, 2008 5:17 am, Michael Kohlhase wrote:
> >
> >> the MathML WG has to bring out the next working draft of the MathML3
> >>
> > recommendation and we have a code freeze on November 6. Since this is
> > the last working draft before the "last call" stage of MathML3, it would
> > be good to have resolved the question whether the <condition> element
> > belongs into strict MathML or pragmatic. Therefore I would ask you to
> > give your opinions about the resolution ASAP. I will organize a
> >
> >> teleconfere later in the coming week or early in the week of the 6.
> >>
> > where we take a decision.
> > A good idea. I apologise for the delay in not following up on the teleon
> > of 10th - as usual I was overtaken by teaching before I had a chance to
> > finish the follow-up - I attach the current state for what it's worth.
> > [second thoughts - it wil probably fall foul of the length limit: I attach
> > the LaTeX, and the PDF (which may be further updated if I get a chance
> > today), is at http://staff.bath.ac.uk/masjhd/Conditions-JHD.pdf]
> >
> >> Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> >>
> >>> (warning: this text contains unicode character)
> >>> #1 condition element
> >>> Basically add, in OpenMath and strict MathML, an element called
> >>>
> > condition or omcond that mimics the current condition element.
> >
> >>> #2 condition symbol
> >>> Invent a new symbol called condition which would do a very similar
> >>>
> > function.
> >
> >>> For example, if it was called c, one would write a conditional
> >>> function as
> >>> ??.x,y: c(x ?? y, x / (x-y) )
> >>>
> > My fundamental objection to MathML's condition, which I think applies to
> > both #1 and #2, is that its presence affects the semantics of the
> > surrounding objects. Indeed, I do not even no of a formal statement about
> > how far its influence might spread: it is sufficient to inspect all the
> > direct children of X for a condition element, or must one delve deeper?
> >
> >>> #3 conditional symbol variants
> >>> For each binder-like symbol, add a variant symbol which does accept an
> >>>
> > extra argument, the condition. The function above would be written:
> >
> >>> ??.x,y: x ?? y, x / (x-y)
> >>>
> > To do this neatly, one would have to scrap the rule that OMBIND only takes
> > one 'ordinary' child, but this, I think, is a small price to pay. Indeed,
> > if it is felt to be too high, one could add OMBINDCOND, with two
> > 'prdinary' children, the first as in OMBIND and the second the condition.
> > This would rescue MK's DEFINTCOND from the objections in my attached note.
> >
> > James Davenport
> > Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology
> > Formerly RAE Coordinator and Undergraduate Director of Studies, CS Dept
> > Lecturer on CM30070, 30078, 50209, 50123, 50199
> > Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath
> > OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor
> > IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase, Office: Research 1, Room 62
> Professor of Computer Science Campus Ring 12,
> School of Engineering & Science D-28759 Bremen, Germany
> Jacobs University Bremen* tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140
> m.kohlhase at jacobs-university.de http://kwarc.info/kohlhase
> skype: m.kohlhase * International University Bremen until Feb. 2007
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: m_kohlhase.vcf
> Type: text/x-vcard
> Size: 320 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url : http://openmath.org/pipermail/om3/attachments/20081031/dc4fd497/attachment-0001.vcf
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:58:05 -0000 (UTC)
> From: "Professor James Davenport" <jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Om3] three avenues for the condition elements
> To: "Michael Kohlhase" <m.kohlhase at jacobs-university.de>
> Cc: OM3 Mailing list <om3 at openmath.org>, Professor James Davenport
> <jhd at cs.bath.ac.uk>
> Message-ID: <55190.86.158.98.53.1225483085.squirrel at www.cs.bath.ac.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> On Fri, October 31, 2008 7:09 pm, Michael Kohlhase wrote:
> > we should make progress on this, I have made a doodle for deciding on a
> > teleconference date, please give me your preferences at
> >
> > http://www.doodle.com/txbc7ez6gt5ahkzm
> Done.
> > The earlier in the week we talk the better.
> Agreed.
> I hope everyine has the complete analysis of Appendex C: I'll try to do
> chapter 4 over the weekend.
>
> James Davenport
> Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology
> Formerly RAE Coordinator and Undergraduate Director of Studies, CS Dept
> Lecturer on CM30070, 30078, 50209, 50123, 50199
> Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath
> OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor
> IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:23:10 +0100
> From: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange at jacobs-university.de>
> Subject: Re: [Om3] CD group and signature markup naming issues
> To: David Carlisle <davidc at nag.co.uk>
> Cc: om3 at openmath.org
> Message-ID: <200810312323.14183.ch.lange at jacobs-university.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear David, dear all,
>
> On Thursday 30 October 2008 23:44:46 David Carlisle wrote:
> > > what was the design rationale for having different namespaces and
> > > different element names for the same metadata markup in CDs, CD groups,
> > > and signature dictionaries?
> >
> > This seems to be a fairly natural consequence of the decision to have
> > a separate namespace for cd groups and sts.
>
> Sorry, I didn't have the fact that we have separate namespaces for these fully
> on my mind when issuing my objections. Maybe I was biased by OMDoc here, as
> in OMDoc all those different things are in the same namespace and can even
> coexist in the same document -- but I'm not implying that this would make
> sense in the OpenMath case.
>
> > STS is deliberately kept at a distance from the core OM, it is not the only
> > possible type system for OM, and so should not have a privileged position of
> > using the CD namespace.
>
> I agree.
>
> > > It looks like poor man's XML namespaces,
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by this. As it happens the basic design of
> > CDGroups etc predates namespaces, but I don't think the use of
> > multiple namespaces in each file (which appears to be what you are
> > suggesting) is an improvement.
>
> Now I have to rephrase my original message. One thing that actually struck me
> was the fact that the local names of the elements in different namespaces also
> have a reference to the namespace. Why not just cd:ReviewDate and
> cds:ReviewDate, or cd:Name and cdg:Name? XML-syntactically that wouldn't be a
> problem, and I think that the human author does not need additional mnemonics
> like the CDGroup in CDGroupName, as he knows anyway what he is editing, be it
> a CD, a CD group, or a signature dictionary.
>
> > CDGroups are the basic of the navigation construct of the CD area of
> > openmath.org, why do you say they are infrequently used?
>
> Oh, of course? What I rather meant was: Does anybody else except ourselves
> use them? People "out there" use CDs, and I think they also use signatures,
> but do they maintain their own CD groups?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christoph
>
> --
> Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 197 bytes
> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
> Url : http://openmath.org/pipermail/om3/attachments/20081031/b8fb09c4/attachment-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:23:05 GMT
> From: David Carlisle <davidc at nag.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Om3] CD group and signature markup naming issues
> To: ch.lange at jacobs-university.de
> Cc: om3 at openmath.org
> Message-ID: <200810312323.m9VNN5FZ028749 at edinburgh.nag.co.uk>
>
>
>
> > Now I have to rephrase my original message. One thing that actually struck me
> > was the fact that the local names of the elements in different namespaces also
> > have a reference to the namespace. Why not just cd:ReviewDate and
> > cds:ReviewDate, or cd:Name and cdg:Name?
>
> If the namespace spec had been done 2 years earlier than it was, then we
> could have
>
> <m:row> instead of <m:mrow>
> <om:A> instead of <om:OMA>
> <cd:Name> instead of <cd:CDName>
>
> But the fact is that the namespace spec came out late (due in part to a
> very acrimonious development cycle:-) and the basic naming scheme for
> openmath, openmath cds, mathml, were all fixed pre-namespace and
> namespaces just layered on top. In a different universe it could have
> been different but history is what it is...
>
>
> David
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
> and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
> Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.
>
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
> powered by MessageLabs.
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Om3 mailing list
> Om3 at openmath.org
> http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
>
>
> End of Om3 Digest, Vol 15, Issue 1
> **********************************
>
More information about the Om3
mailing list