Re: ci csymbol are confusing

Reading again the spec and special role of <declare> for defining specific
instances of generic identifiers a third interpretation for <ci> vs
<csymbol> arises.

<csymbol> would be used for 'objects' permanently defined. E.g the
definition of Bessel or Boltzman constant (value and dimensions) are
'permanent'. I assume that variations in accepted values for universal
constants over large periods of time can be interpreted as 'accidents'.

<ci> would be used for 'objects' with properties asigned in a temporal
interval. E.g the definition of V as being a vector (1,2,3) is not
permanent or universal but author dependant and even of restricted scope.

On that case i would use   <csymbol>#</csymbol> no matter where definition
of the sharp product is done: internally via <declare> or externally via
OpenMath doc arhived online.

The early example opened this debate would use then (arguably) <csymbol>
instead <ci> if we follow this C) interpretation, because "Equilibrium"
(the specific concept of 'sctoichometric equality' author tried to
communicate online) is playing a role analogous to a Boltzman constant or
a Bessel function.

However, it is my belief that three interpretations for <ci> and <csymbol>
(A, B, and this new one C) are contained in different parts of the spec
(and how read by different authors) and this would be carefully discussed
and revised.

As an adittional note, would declare be deprecated as was fn?

<apply>
<declaration type="vector"/>
  <ci>V</ci>
  <vector>
    <cn>1</cn>
    <cn>2</cn>
    <cn>3</cn>
  </vector>
</apply>

Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 09:26:40 UTC