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>

To: www-math@w3.org

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:19:27 +0200

Message-ID: <3EA668AF.8090001@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

To: www-math@w3.org

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, -- AndreasReceived 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
*