[Om3] binary vs n-ary relations

[Michael Kohlhase]

Professor James Davenport wrote:
>> So can we get a consensus here? We have a telcon this afternoon, where
>> we can probably decide this. So if I interpret what I have seen, your
>> preference would be:
>>
>> 1. relation symbols are binary!!!!
>>     
> Yes.
>   
>> 2. we still have pragmatic MathML of the form
>>      <apply><eq/>a b c</apply>
>>      but that will be translated to
>>      <apply>
>>        <csymbol cd="logic1">and</csymbol>
>>        <apply><csymbol cd="relation1">eq</csmbol>a b</csmbol></apply>
>>        <apply><csymbol cd="relation1">eq</csmbol>b c</csmbol></apply>
>>      </apply>
>>      in the content to strict translation.
>>     
> and for the other transitive ones (> etc), but NOT for neq.
>   
we do not have a problem here, since MathML2 never said that they were
nary, it only did for positive ones.
> I don't know what to do about a<b>c etc.: as far as I can tell pragmatic 
> did not have them, so we shouldn't add them.
> Ditto a>b,c>d, which seems to have no clear semantics.
> James
>   

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------