# Suggested Corrections to 4.2.3.2 and 4.4.2.15

From: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:19:27 +0200
Message-ID: <3EA668AF.8090001@rrz.uni-koeln.de>


4.2.3.2:

I would like to suggest removing one line from the example quoted below
from section 4.2.3.2, namely, the line containing the bvar qualifier:

" It is also valid to use qualifier schema with a function not applied
to an argument. For example, a function acting on integrable functions
on the interval [0,1] might be denoted:
<fn>
<apply>
<int/>
<bvar><ci>x</ci></bvar>
<lowlimit><cn>0</cn></lowlimit>
<uplimit><cn>1</cn></uplimit>
</apply>
</fn>
"

I found that Maple quite reasonably interprets the apply element of the
example as it stands now as $\int_0^1 dx$, which evaluates to 1.

The problem is that the correct way to represent the concept of
integrals over a particular interval is along the lines of the example
in section 4.4.2.15 (Domain of Application):

"The integral of a function f over an arbitrary domain C .
<apply>
<int/>
<domainofapplication>
<ci> C </ci>
</domainofapplication>
<ci> f </ci>
</apply>
"

using a unary function as an argument to the integral operator.  The way
the current example that I suggest fixed here stands, variables x in the
argument to such a function would be crossing a variable binding barrier
in a rather peculiar way that I don't think any semantics formalism
could possibly allow in a systematic fashion.

4.4.2.15:

I just realized that domainofapplication is not currently listed as a
qualifier (as I had assumed) but as a regular element.  I don't think
that that is a good idea -- it clearly has just as special a semantics
as all the other qualifier elements, and should be a qualifier just like
them.

I hope this helps,

-- Andreas

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 06:19:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:33 UTC