Re: State of the N-ary

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> Fourth, syntax:
>     The XML/functional syntax is easy, though we could add a bit of 
> sugar to make writing equations nicer. I don't see any reason not to use 
> MathML.
>     For RDF, I thought equations could use MathML too (as a literal or 
> data uri) for inline equations. We should also allow  naming predicates.

Just for my understanding (and to be a bit more precise)...

MathML is actually a strange beast, because it is two different markups 
in one specification. They have a Presentation Markup[1] and a Content 
Markup[2]. (Roughly speaking the presentation markup is, well, for the 
presentation of mathematical equations and formulae, whereas the content 
markup describes the the abstract mathematical notions. In some cases 
they can be mixed.).

I would expect that we would restrict to the content markup in this 
case. Am I right?



> (The situation is pretty similar for strings. But I think this gives 
> enough of the flavor of the situation for fruitful discussion.)
> Fifth, naming and conformance:
>     Since datatypes and predicates are extensible, perhaps we should 
> follow the DL conventions and have an extensible  naming scheme. This 
> would help implementations that wanted to support more modest data 
> reasoning.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:48:12 UTC