From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:48:29 +0100

Message-Id: <200905140948.n4E9mThe030361@edinburgh.nag.co.uk>

To: andreas.strotmann@ualberta.ca

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 10:48:29 +0100

Message-Id: <200905140948.n4E9mThe030361@edinburgh.nag.co.uk>

To: andreas.strotmann@ualberta.ca

Cc: www-math@w3.org

Andreas, Thanks for your comments. I think one problem is that you are looking at the November draft of MathML 3. This had a very rough first cut at refactoring Content MathML with the "Strict" subset aligned with OpenMath. As a working group we've done a lot of work on it since then, in fact the principle reason for the delay in getting out another official draft is that work on chapter 4 is still progressing. However as previously mentioned on this list, it's possible to follow the current state of play at http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/draft-spec/ which is a CVS checkout of from the source control, so that draft changes without notice (watch the automated date in the red flash on the front cover, which is the cvs check-in date) The rules mapping from MathML to its strict subset have been completely reworked since November and in particular the principle that condition,interval,lowlimit,uplimit qualifiers are syntactic variants of domainofapplication is, I hope, now correctly maintained. One other general constraint that you need to be aware of is that for assorted organisational reasons the mapping has to be a mapping to OpenMath2. So while it is possible to envision improvements to OpenMath to make OpenMath3, and those improvements could filter to some future mapping from MathML 3.x to a Strict Content MathML 3.x subset, the Subset defined in mathML3 has to align with what we have in OpenMath today. Of course if we think there are possible or probable changes in OpenMath and a mapping to current OpenMath can be designed in such a way that any future changes cause minimum impact that would be a good thing. So while it's not entirely out of scope to discuss changes to OM (and of course entirely in scope for the original context of your paper as a submission to OM2009) the amount to which such changes can affect MathML3 is severely limited. > Principle 2. The pattern apply(operator, bvar(vars), body) is semantically > equivalent to the pattern apply(operator, lambda(bvar(vars), body)). This is more or less the case in the current draft see http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/draft-spec/chapter4.html#contm.dombind-strict which expresses this. __personally__ I think things would have been a lot better if OM2 had not introduced OMBIND and just had OMLambda (and what's currently encoded in OpenMath as OMBIND head bvars body would have been encoded as OMA head OMLambda bvars body which would have made OM2 simpler and made the mapping from MathML3 easier as well, but OM2 is what it is so I think we have to support OMBind usage, and existing symbols (like forall and exists) which are specified in the OM2 CDs as doing their own binding using OMBind rather than being a symbol which you apply to a function term. This causes a couple of extra "special case" rules in the mapping but isn't I think a mjor complication and is just the price you pay for having a history rather than the freedom of doing version 1 of a language:-) So given that OM has OMBind and an explicit aim of this refactoring is to align with OpenMath I think that it is inevitable that we add <bind> rather than suggesting everything is rewritten in terms of the (existing) <lambda>. One of the "problems" that the current rewrites try to address is that MathML2 did not consistently use apply/bvar in a way consistent with principle 2. For example x is free not bound in <apply> <int/> <bvar><ci>x</ci></bvar> <apply><times/><ci>x</ci><ci>x</ci></apply> </apply> bvar is used to specify the "variable of integration" even though it's not bound in that form, only in the case of definite integration. this is why in the current editors draft there is an explicit rewrite http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/draft-spec/chapter4.html#contm.p2s.int which first binds x, does the integration and then makes x free again, ie saying the above is syntactic shorthand for <apply> <apply> <int/> <lambda> <bvar><ci>x</ci></bvar> <apply><times/><ci>x</ci><ci>x</ci></apply> </lambda> </apply> <ci>x</ci> </apply> Similar "special cases" apply to diff and partialdiff, and other symbols. In other words, I don't agree with your final example in section 3 The following are equivalent: { apply(int,bvar(x),apply(sin,x)) { apply(int,lambda(bvar(x), apply(sin,x))) as the first is, I believe the expression cos x, in which x is free, and the second is the function term cos or equivalently lambda x. cos x If we took the view that bvar always implied binding the variable, then MathML would have no way to say that if you differentiate the polynomial x^2 wrt x you get 2x (as opposed to the different polynomial 2y) > OpenMath 2 does have the equivalents of MathML 2's apply and of its > apply with a bvar qualifier. The latter, however, severely restricts the type of > heads it accepts (although it did not do so in OpenMath 1), I'm confused by this remark, OMBIND in both the text description of OpenMath Objects, and in the schema for the XMl encoding, accepts an arbitrary OpenMath term as head, could you clarify? > Note that fns1:domainofapplication does not at this point have a precise deni- > tion; You are being polite there:-) As far as I can see the definition is completely nonsensical (and probably my error) the only description given for domainofapplication is mathml alignment but its STS signature is that of domain (probably cut and paste error) so rather than restrict the domain of a function, it (presumably) is a synonym for domain() which, given a function returns its domain. In http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/draft-spec/chapter4.html#contm.strict-doa we've suggested using a new symbol from an (extended) fns1 CD that does mirror what you need for mathml's domainofapplication. provisionally it's called fns1:restriction (with fns1:domainofapplication being deprectaed) http://monet.nag.co.uk/~dpc/cdfiles2/cd/fns1.xhtml#restriction these updated CDs will be presented formally at the OM meeting, I hope. You make a lot of other good points and we should work through your principles and see how far the current rewrites adhere to them, so I won't respond in detail to all your points here but I wanted to make an initial response just to thank you for the review and to confirm we'd got it, and also to encourage you to watch the editors draft as chapter 4 is being worked on at present. So further comments will no doubt follow. Also these are personal comments not a WG view (although we have a teleconference this afternoon, when this will no doubt be discussed) Thanks again, David ________________________________________________________________________ The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. ________________________________________________________________________Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 09:49:09 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:13:04 GMT
*