- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:20:51 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On 2 Jul 2008, at 14:04, Ivan Herman wrote: > 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 That's what motivated me. > and not, say, whether the plus sign is infix or not (and the > presentation markup forces you to make this choice)... Right, but for authoring that makes sense. So, say, in the xml syntax, you might support a "nice" presentation syntax and define a mapping to the content. <shrug> That also could just happen at the tool level, but in my current experience, having tools fiddle with my stuff is nasty. Protege4 strips parenthesis I put it to help mark precedence . The result is pretty printed and it's really frustrating :) But in the abstract model, it should be content all the way. Cheers, Bijan.

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 13:18:42 UTC