- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:04:11 +0200
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <486B7CCB.8020206@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote: > 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. > Thanks. And I agree with your choice. I think the presentational markup is not really appropriate here, actually. You want to express the intent of the mathematical formulae and not, say, whether the plus sign is infix or not (and the presentation markup forces you to make this choice)... Thanks I. > Cheers, > Bijan. > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:04:48 UTC