From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 06:59:34 -0400

Message-ID: <3ECDFF16.8030904@stratumtek.com>

To: Poul Nielsen <p.nielsen@auckland.ac.nz>

CC: www-math@w3.org

Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 06:59:34 -0400

Message-ID: <3ECDFF16.8030904@stratumtek.com>

To: Poul Nielsen <p.nielsen@auckland.ac.nz>

CC: www-math@w3.org

Seems fine to me. In fact, if it were not, I would argue strongly that a vector of vectors is a legitimate construction. Your example would be even more interesting if it involved some sort of special operations on these mathematical objects - which might be written as <apply> <csymbol definitionURL="cellBiology/specialProduct1">*</csymbol> <vector definitonURL="...">...</vector> <vector definitionURL="...">...</vector> </apply> In general, your basic choice for representing this kind of data boils down to using lists or vectors in some combination. The definitionURL provides the author with a way of identifying it as special in some way. Stan Devitt Poul Nielsen wrote: > > I use Content MathML to specify the mathematics that describe the > relationships between variables in a biological model definition > language, CellML. Is it correct that content vector elements may > themselves be vectors (or any other Content MathML element for that > matter)? The DOM for MathML seems to indicate this since the return > value of getComponent applied to MathMLVectorElement is a > MathMLContentElement. There is, however, no indication in the version > 2.0 specification examples that this is accepted practice. >Received on Friday, 23 May 2003 06:57:28 GMT

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