[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: semantical annotations

To: w3cmatherb@w3.org

Subject: Re: semantical annotations

From: "Robert S. Sutor"<SUTOR@watson.ibm.com>

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 16:23:02 0400

From w3cmatherbrequest@www10.w3.org Sat Sep 7 16: 30:09 1996

MessageID: <8525639E:006F05F0.00@watngi05.watson.ibm.com>

XLotusFromDomain: IBM RESEARCH
Ron,
You are correct in saying that type information really needs to have
embedded math objects. A simple example, in Axiom notation, where
a math object is part of the type is SquareMatrix(2, Integer). Here the
"2"
is really a positive integer, although it could obviously be part of a
string.
Here is a more sophisticated example (I hope you like the type name!):
FiniteFieldNormalBasisExtensionByPolynomial(Prime Field 3, X^^3+2*X^^3+2)
The second argument is a polynomial whose coefficients come from the
first.
Contexts, in the OpenMath sense, are not parametrized, so a string will
suffice there.
Bob