- From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:28:59 +0000
- To: Andreas Strotmann <andreas.strotmann@gmail.com>
- Cc: Bruce Miller <bruce.miller@nist.gov>, "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, Paul Libbrecht <paul@hoplahup.net>, Daniel Marques <dani@wiris.com>
- Message-ID: <CAD2k14OQxVhM9Km0_bTrLh7iVPXOJ4mvquBEMKoNV0cRnjwzLA@mail.gmail.com>

Andreas, This is REALLY helpful On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Andreas Strotmann < andreas.strotmann@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry to butt in so late, but I think we would be remiss not to point out > the rather obvious- namely, that MathML Content is fully equipped natively > to support the functional programming style, but no other style. > This was my first reall involvement with content MathML2.0 and it wasn't obvious to me! I don't read docs sequentially so may have missed something at the start but it's probably a good idea to reiterate it in the docs elsewhere. I am assuming that there will be an increasing number of people like me - who want to use MathML2.0 for computation. (I know a lot of them use other packages to help writing code). Whether we are enough to be a special case that now needs support I don't know. > More to the point, a sequence of assignments would therefore 'naturally' > be expressed as nested lambda expressions in MathML to preserve semantics. > > - Andreas > Am 15.03.2012 15:47 schrieb "Bruce Miller" <bruce.miller@nist.gov>: > > On 03/15/2012 10:24 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: >> >>> Many thanks to all of you (happy to have more comments, of course, but >>> you have >>> answered my concerns). There's always a requirement for *some* implicit >>> semantics and I think I can see a fairly clear intuitive boundary now. >>> >>> Clearly scope is important and my current implementation uses a symbol >>> table in >>> the immediate parent <mathml/> (I assume that <mathml/> is not nestable, >>> but in >>> case it was this defines a scope. >>> >>> My other question is whether I can include foreign namespaces. I can see >>> things >>> like: >>> >> >> You can, but it's not (purely) MathML anymore... >> if that matters. >> >> As you said earlier in the thread: MathML has good >> declarative power. But to express programming or >> computations, you'll need imperative. >> At least simple things like distinguishing >> the declarative relationship k=0.1 from the >> imperative assignment k=0.1. >> >> It isn't that MML or OM can't do that, but the >> content dictionaries don't provide much. >> >> You'll have an easier time declaring the relationships >> in MathML than expressing the demand for their computations >> --- assuming your computational engine can figure out >> what to do. However, if you do want to express the computations, >> I would encourage you to at least consider how those could >> be cast in MathML using apply, csymbol etc. and in particular >> using a content dictionary with symbols for expressing those >> imperatives. Could be useful to others! >> >> bruce >> >> >>> <apply><eq/><ci>atomSet</ci><**apply><cml:getatoms/><cml:**molecule >>> id="m3"/></apply> >>> <foreach> >>> <!-- iterate through the set --> >>> <apply><eq/><cn>aw</cn><apply>**<cml:getMass/><cml:atom></** >>> apply><apply> >>> </foreach> >>> >> >> -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 08:29:35 UTC