- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:53:40 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 2 Jul 2008, at 13:47, Ivan Herman wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: > [snip] >> 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? That was my intent and how I sketched it out. If presentational markup proved so much nicer, we could use that with an understanding of exactly what it represented. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 12:59:28 UTC