- From: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:47:31 -0400
- To: Bill Naylor <Bill.Naylor@mcs.vuw.ac.nz>
- CC: www-math@w3.org, om@openmath.org
Thanks Bill, We'll catch that in a revised draft. There is certainly no intent to belittle, compete or replace. The main point was that a needed functionality of the notation - motivated by and already present in OpenMath - was being addressed. (This came up in the context of round-tripping to and from appropriate CD's.) . Also, quite apart from motivating the expressivity of the notation on this topic, OpenMath provides a very valuable complementary resource as a systematic approach to a reference library of such definitions and there is no intent to duplicate that work. Stan Devitt Bill Naylor wrote: > > >>http://www.w3.org/Math/Documents/Notes. >> >> >> > >after a quick reading of the document: > >"Structured types in MathML 2.0" > >I have a comment on section 4.1 > >'Representing and Associating Types in OpenMath' > >It seems to me that the paragraph starting > >"With the representation ..., content MathML is as expressive as OpenMath >for types." > >gives the message that MathML is as good, if not better than OpenMath, >which of course is not the point as they are not supposed to be in >competition! Of course the definitionURL attribute should be pointing >somewhere meaningful, and this, I understand, is a major reason for >OpenMath (at least as far as MathML is concerned); to give target points >for this attribute's values. I would suggest maybe a rewording of this >paragraph which cast OpenMath in more of a supportive role to MathML. > >cheers, > >Bill > > >
Received on Friday, 25 July 2003 08:45:42 UTC