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

Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 19:11:36 +0200

Message-ID: <3EC12748.4010308@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

To: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>, www-math@w3.org

Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 19:11:36 +0200

Message-ID: <3EC12748.4010308@rrz.uni-koeln.de>

To: Andreas Strotmann <Strotmann@rrz.uni-koeln.de>, www-math@w3.org

Hello, even if these comments may be a bit too late, I feel it would be useful to supplement the recommendations I made during the last few days with this much more fundamental observation on the use of the main MathML-Content qualifiers, as an explanation of the rationale behind many of my recommendations. I'm sorry that this turned out to be such a long comment, but the matter feels important to me -- important to get it right in the second edition, that is. I hope this helps! This of course represents my personal analysis, and though I'm pretty confident, I'm not 100% sure I've got it right. Comments are therefore more than welcome. -- Andreas ============= The comments ======================= There appears to be some confusion still about how to use the new domainofapplication element. In some places it is clearly marked as a qualifier that generalizes the interval qualifier to general sets, but in some places (such as in this appendix) it appears to be treated as a regular constructor, thus generalizing the interval *constructor*, which then brings up what its definition might be. It is evident to me that in the minds of those who came up with this important addition to MathML, this element was meant to be used exclusively as a qualifier (and emphatically not as a constructor) to generalize the interval *qualifier* (and in my stated opinion in fact to supercede this dangerous dual use of the interval element), and to factor out the use of the condition qualifier that allows it to contain a set, not just a predicate. In the comments that I have been submitting during the past week or so, I have therefore assumed that the intention implicit in the choice of qualifiers available for general use is as follows: bvar - there may be zero(!) or more of these anywhere; they denote bound variables in a particular order. uplimit, lowlimit, interval, and domainofapplication - these all represent sets that restrict the domain of a variable. Thus, only the limits (one or both) *or* interval *or* domainofapplication may appear in a sensible apply. condition - this one is meant to represent a predicate over the bound variables of the surrounding element which acts as a filter defining the set of combinations of bvar values that the operator ranges over. Since domainofapplication is new, condition, interval, and the two limits covered its use in earlier versions, which leads to a need to deprecate the 'double entendre' usage of these older elements that are more clearly represented by domainofapplication. I therefore recommend deprecating the following in order to clean up the spec: - the use of a condition qualifier that contains the representation of a set rather than a predicate -- markup that does this should simply replace the condition with the domainofapplication qualifier. - the interval qualifier (but not the constructor) -- markup that uses the interval qualifier should replace it with a domainofapplication qualifier that contains an interval constructor element with the same content as the original interval qualifier instead. (Incidentally, this deprecation also makes it easier again to understand how an interval *constructor* would need to be allowed to contain a single child element, a condition, because doing the same thing with an interval *qualifier* seemed rather spurious because condition should be used instead.) With these changes in place, we have a clean separation between the uses of the condition and the domainofapplication qualifiers, as follows: - the condition contains a predicate over all the bvars, and may in principle be used with an empty set of bvars (in which case it becomes a predicate over the free variables). The predicate is in effect the characteristic predicate for a domainofapplication. - the domainofapplication qualifier, by contrast, contains a set. In the current definition, there are two cases that need to be distinguished: a) the signature op: (bvar,dom-of-app,any) -> any b) the signature op: (dom-of-app,function) -> any Of these, a) means the same as op(bvar, condition(bvar \in dom-of-app), arg) while b) is equivalent to op(newvars, dom-of-app, apply(function, newvars)) Note that in the latter case, the domain of application may actually be a cartesian product in order to assign ranges to several arguments of the argument function simultaneously. This is currently not true in a), but it could be specified in the MathML spec that domainofapplication should contain a matching-arity cartesian product in the case of multiple bvars with one domainofapplication (although the fact that it should contain a cartesian product semantically does not mean that it would necessarily contain one syntactically -- but if it does, its meaning is clear). Note also that a) means the same as op(dom-of-app,lambda(bvar,arg)) while a signature of op(bvars, condition, arg) is equivalent to op( dom-of-app(set(bvars,condition,cartesianproduct(bvars)), lambda(bvars,arg) ) and a signature like op(bvars,arg) means the same as op(lambda(bvars,arg)) For the signatures in appendix C (and the corresponding text in the main body), all of this translates to a few general rules: - lowlimit, uplimit, (deprecated interval), and domainofapplication belong in one and the same group of qualifiers, the most general of which is domainofapplication. They are characterized by not specifying the names of the variables that they constrain. - the second group of qualifiers is the condition qualifier in its reduced definition that requires a predicate argument and disallows a set argument. It is characterized by specifically naming the variables it constrains. - thus, only one of these groups of qualifiers may be used in an element, but not both. - in cases where operators usually take bvar qualifiers, as in int, diff, product, sum, exists, forall, lack of bvars on first sight would automatically mean that the single argument must be a function, as in apply(int,f) and in apply(diff,f). (Incidentally, this rule does not apply to the lambda constructor since it does not have an operator.) But in the case of n-ary constructors, this is problematic (this includes the set and matrix constructors and the min and max operators, all of which have versions without any qualifiers with an n-ary regular function interpretation, and a version with qualifiers interpreted like int and sum or lambda.) The problem is that in the current MathML spec, operators like min and max (and there are plenty of those) are implicitly 'lifted' to their 'big' version (like \wedge -> \bigwedge , i.e. or -> exists in a well known notation, or max -> sup): 'small' signature (A*) -> B 'big' signature (function) -> B (domainofapplication, function) -> B (bvar,A) -> B (bvar,domainofapplication,A) -> B (bvar,condition,A) -> B In the future, a general-purpose piece of markup for this lifting could be useful, so that one could say, for example apply(big(max),my_real_fn) instead of apply(max,my_real_fn) which clearly doesn't do the same thing. Fortunately, by supplying an empty domainofapplication, this semantic lifting can be implemented in MathML in a systematic way without introducing the 'big' operator: apply(or,domainofapplication(),my_predicate_fn) can be defined consistently in MathML to have the required meaning. In other words, we can reconcile the 'big' and 'small' signatures into a single one by providing the following combined signature: 'combi' signature (A*) -> B (domainofapplication,function) -> B (bvar,A) -> B (bvar,domainofapplication,A) -> B (bvar,condition,A) -> B Replacing the 'function' with its signature, (A -> B), we get 'combi' signature (A*) -> B (domainofapplication,(A->B)) -> B (bvar,A) -> B (bvar,domainofapplication,A) -> B (bvar,condition,A) -> B which is unfortunately a bit different from the 'big' signature ((A->B)) -> B (domainofapplication,(A->B)) -> B (bvar,A) -> B (bvar,domainofapplication,A) -> B (bvar,condition,A) -> B From the perspective of automatic, semantically correct processing of MathML-Content trees, the crucial question is how to reliably distinguish these two cases when all you have is a user-defined symbol as an operator (say). Which of these classes does it belong to? How do you interpret op(a) compared with op(bvar(x),b) safely when you cannot know the signature? The practical solution is to always assume the 'combi' signature. This means that apply(product,a) is interpreted the same as apply(plus,a), and that apply(plus,bvar(x),f) is interpreted the same as apply(product,bvar(x),f), etc. This means that the indefinite integration and differentiation operators are the only ones that violate this pattern; user- defined operators of this sort should always be used with a possibly empty domainofapplication qualifier when they want to express application to a function (as in 'prime'): the completely qualifier-free use of my_diff_op as in apply(my_diff_op,f) does *not* encode f^\myprime. Instead, I would have to use apply(my_diff_op,domainofapplication(),f) to get the desired meaning, unless one is certain that one never would want to use it with a bvar qualifier. (Note that it is not necessary to change the signatures of the existing MathML operators, because for these, the signatures do exist.) This also means that the quantifiers, and the product and sum operators *do* have a reasonable meaning when used without any qualifiers, and can be assigned the appropriate signature copied from the appropriate logical connectives or from times and plus, resp. Conversely, it means that all n-ary operators have a reasonable meaning when used with these qualifiers, and their signatures in appendix C should reflect that fact. Last not least, it means that apply can be given a general signature, too: apply: ((any*->any), any*) -> any (((any->any)->any),dom-of-app,(any->any)) -> any (((any->any)->any),bvar,any) -> any (((any->any)->any),bvar,dom-of-app,any) -> any (((any->any)->any),bvar,condition,any) -> any where dom-of-app:: domainofapplication|uplimit|lowlimit |lowlimit,uplimit (leaving out the questionable interval qualifier). Still, it might be useful to provide a type attribute in MathML to signal that a csymbol is meant to follow the pattern of the int and diff operators rather that of the max and min operators, just to be on the safe side.Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 13:11:40 GMT

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