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

Re: Last Call Working Draft of MathML 2.0, 2nd edition published

From: Bill Naylor <Bill.Naylor@mcs.vuw.ac.nz>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 18:01:34 +1200 (NZST)
To: Clare So <clare@scl.csd.uwo.ca>
cc: www-math@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.51.0305081745530.21833@debretts.mcs.vuw.ac.nz>

> Hello all,
>
> Section 4.3.2.9 of the MathML reccomendation states that the "type"
> attribute of a <ci> can be "the name of any content element".  In my
> opinion, the fact that arbitrary type is allowed may hinder the
> particular element to be transformed into other document forms, such
> as OpenMath, while preseving the complete semantics of the particular
> <ci>.  In the "mathmltyles" OpenMath CD, there are only a
> finite number of types available to add type information to a
> mathematical object.  What do other people think?

So, we are allowed to use attribute values of "integer, rational, real,
float, complex, complex-polar, complex-cartesian, constant" that allows
for identifiers to be typed with a bunch of 'numerical' types. However one
may also want an identifier to be a function, maybe <ci
type="lambda">foo</ci>, or a matrix <ci type="matrix">M</ci>, set, vector,
polynomial etc. I see that in the CD mathmltypes there are symbols for
fn_type, list_type, matrix_type, set_type, vector_type. I guess that the
phrase "the name of any content element" could be thought of as pretty
open-ended seeing as you do have csymbol and semantics in content MathML.
But this is good isn't it?

The whole point (well major point) with OpenMath is extensibility, so if
your problem is problems with converting from MathML to OpenMath, I would
suggest writing your own mathmlmoretypes CDs, and maybe submitting on the
OpenMath submissions page:

http://monet.nag.co.uk/cocoon/openmath/cdfiles/contrib/index.html

all the best,

Bill
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 02:01:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:54 GMT