[Om3] binary vs n-ary relations

[Paul Libbrecht]

Le 24-sept.-08 à 18:17, Professor James Davenport a écrit :

>> Indeed; while I do think it is appealing to be able to
>> preserve this notational structure, nary relations
>> only scratch the surface.  Short of a contrived
>> multi-relation construct, this situation would
>> seem to be best solved (at a MML level) by
>> a <semantics> pairing of the desired notation
>> and the underlying logic, probably using sharing/id/ref.
>>
>
> Michael: I fear you're out-numbered.

Well, careful James, I'm afraid MathML-2 spec counts as many voices  
here...

Let's be pragmatic, how much are we breaking if we claim that strict- 
MathML's relation symbols are binary only?
This can certainly be part of the pragmatic to strict translation right?

> Indeed so, or some other notational method to be invented, but it's a
> NOTATION, not SEMANTICS.

a complaint to the implementors in general may be that they follow  
semantics all the time... I've never seen a formula editor actually  
offer in its palette the ability to extend a = b to become a = b < c  
(except presentation editors).

paul
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2203 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://openmath.org/pipermail/om3/attachments/20080924/ad4bb04a/attachment.bin