From: Bill Naylor <Bill.Naylor@mcs.vuw.ac.nz>

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:52:02 +1200 (NZST)

To: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

cc: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, www-math@w3.org, davidc@nag.co.uk, jhd@cs.bath.ac.uk

Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.51.0307211034430.2139@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>

Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:52:02 +1200 (NZST)

To: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

cc: "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>, www-math@w3.org, davidc@nag.co.uk, jhd@cs.bath.ac.uk

Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.51.0307211034430.2139@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>

I think this is an interesting example. I would suggest that the meaning of these examples could be made more precise by using the definitionURL attribute, attached to the <ci> inside the bvar, to point to OpenMath CDs: <set> <bvar><ci defintionURL="http://www.openmath.org/cd/units_imperial2#inch">i</ci></bvar> <bvar><ci defintionURL="http://www.openmath.org/cd/units_metric2#centimeter">c</ci></bvar> <condition> <apply><eq/> <ci>c</ci> <apply><times/> <ci>i</ci> <cn>2.54</cn> </apply> </apply> </condition> <list><ci>i</ci><ci>c</ci></list> </set> at least I would have, until I noticed that these symbols do not exist :-! David, James: do you think that these *_imperial2, *_metric2 cds should be written. This example from R. Costello provides a pretty clear raison d'ettre for them, I don't see how his example could be marked up otherwise without using Private cds? Bill > > > >Stan Devitt wrote: > > > > > >>This type of set constructor should have a final argument which is > >>a sample of the thing being constructed as in > >> > >><set> > >> <bvar><ci>i</ci></bvar> > >> <bvar><ci>c</ci></bvar> > >> <condition> > >> <apply><eq/> > >> <ci>c</ci> > >> <apply><times/> > >> <ci>i</ci> > >> <cn>2.54</cn> > >> </apply> > >> </apply> > >> </condition> > >> <list><ci>i</ci><ci>c</ci></list> > >></set> > >> > >>They should be grouped in some way, for example, using a set, > >>list or vector. > >> > >>Stan Devitt > >>StratumTek > >> > >>Roger L. Costello wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hi Folks, > >>> > >>>Suppose that I want to represent the set of all inch/centimeter pairs, > >>>e.g, > >>> > >>> {i, c | c = i * 2.54} > >>> > >>>Examples in this set include: > >>> > >>> (1.0, 2.54), (2.0, 5.08), etc > >>> > >>>Is this the correct way to represent this set in MathML: > >>> > >>><math> > >>> <declare type="set"> > >>> <ci>S<ci> > >>> <set> > >>> <bvar><ci>i</ci></bvar> > >>> <bvar><ci>c</ci></bvar> > >>> <condition> > >>> <apply> > >>> <eq/> > >>> <ci>c</ci> > >>> <apply> > >>> <times/> > >>> <ci>i</ci> > >>> <cn>2.54</cn> > >>> </apply> > >>> </apply> > >>> </condition> > >>> </set> > >>> </declare> > >>></math> > >>> > >>>I think that this is correct. My only hesitation is that perhaps I need > >>>parentheses around (i,c)? e.g., > >>> > >>> {(i, c) | c = i * 2.54} > >>> > >>>And likewise in the MathML representation place parentheses? /Roger > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > >Received on Sunday, 20 July 2003 18:53:18 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:55 GMT
*