W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > July 2003

Re: [om] MathML draft Notes available for review

From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:47:31 -0400
Message-ID: <3F2126E3.8080309@stratumtek.com>
To: Bill Naylor <Bill.Naylor@mcs.vuw.ac.nz>
CC: www-math@w3.org, om@openmath.org

Thanks Bill,

We'll catch that in a revised draft.  There is certainly no
intent to belittle, compete or replace. The main point was
that a needed functionality of the notation - motivated by
and already present in OpenMath - was being addressed.
(This came up in the context of  round-tripping to and
from appropriate CD's.) . Also, quite apart from motivating
the expressivity of the notation on this topic, OpenMath
provides a very valuable complementary resource as a
systematic approach to a reference library of such definitions
and there is no intent to duplicate that work.


Stan Devitt

Bill Naylor wrote:

>  
>
>>http://www.w3.org/Math/Documents/Notes.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>after a quick reading of the document:
>
>"Structured types in MathML 2.0"
>
>I have a comment on section 4.1
>
>'Representing and Associating Types in OpenMath'
>
>It seems to me that the paragraph starting
>
>"With the representation ..., content MathML is as expressive as OpenMath
>for types."
>
>gives the message that MathML is as good, if not better than OpenMath,
>which of course is not the point as they are not supposed to be in
>competition! Of course the definitionURL attribute should be pointing
>somewhere meaningful, and this, I understand, is a major reason for
>OpenMath (at least as far as MathML is concerned); to give target points
>for this attribute's values. I would suggest maybe a rewording of this
>paragraph which cast OpenMath in more of a supportive role to MathML.
>
>cheers,
>
>Bill
>
>  
>
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 08:45:42 GMT

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