From: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:03:16 +0200

Message-ID: <3F0BF674.7020903@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

To: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

CC: www-math@w3.org

Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 13:03:16 +0200

Message-ID: <3F0BF674.7020903@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

To: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

CC: www-math@w3.org

Stan, I'm quite happy with the resolution you describe below. Even though it's probably not easy to formalize your resolution of the <interval> ambiguity, at this stage an intentional bit of vagueness may be the better approach compared with a prematurely formalized solution. -- Andreas Stan Devitt wrote: > > Andreas, > > I am working my way through your messages in detail to make sure > we have at least considered everything. You will be getting several > messages from me over the next while summarizing the outcome of our > review. > > Once again, a response from you acknowledging that your points have at > least been considered will help us to close out the issues list. One > response to each message will be fine. > > Stan Devitt > Math Working Group > > > Re: a question about <forall> element > > > > From: Andreas Strotmann (Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de) > > Date: Tue, May 06 2003 > > > >Message-ID: <3EB7DBBC.7020709@rrz.uni-koeln.de> > >Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 17:58:52 +0200 > >From: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de> > >To: Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com> > >CC: www-math@w3.org > >Subject: Re: a question about <forall> element > > > > > >I stand corrected then, Robert. > > > >However, it does say "should", not "must", so any content element is OK, > >sort of, except reln, which is explicitly depracated. You may have to > >fix the validation grammar then (though it should issue a warning, I > >suppose). > > > [Stan] > The validation grammar has been fixed to make the treatment of these > and other operators more regular and to allow more general arguments. > As a result, some uses that were arbitrarily restricted before either > in the wording or the grammar now are allowed. > > > > > >Still, the original poster appears to have hit upon a serious problem > >here. I can't think of a single case where insisting on a specific type > >of argument would be OK in all cases. In this particular case, just > >replace the body, variable x, with a logical constant such as true or > >false, and you have a perfectly sensible mathematical statement that > >should be representable in a straight-forward way without inserting an > >identity function into it somehow. > > > [Stan] > In fixing the grammar, we have taken into account that this was a > general problem and the arity requirements have been relaxed. The > primary change in the grammar has been that it now treats most of > the operators that could sensibly be n-ary as n-ary and also allows > use of domain of application in all its various forms. > > The old usage is of course still valid. > > > > > > >This reminds me of a problem that I posted a long, long time ago, about > >having interval both as a constructor and as a qualifier element. > > That's a dangerous syntactic ambiguity: is an apply with an integral > >operator and an interval element a) an operator on functions which > >returns the integral of an argument function over that interval, or b) > >the indefinite integral of an interval-valued function? > > > > [Stan] > Interval may still be a qualifier, but the possible ambiguity has been > addressed. In the ordinary course of events, when used in an apply > where a qualifier is expected then it is a qualifier. If anything > occurs (such as multiple occurrences of an interval) to put this > interpretation in doubt then they must be interreted as an ordinary > operands. > > =============== > Editorial Note: Issues 12-1 to 12-3 > >Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 07:03:24 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:34 UTC
*