- From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 19:00:31 +0100 (BST)
- To: leo@iems.nwu.edu
- CC: www-math@w3.org
> I have an important concern: Are these > standards going to be appropriate for communicating huge objects > (matrices, etc...)? Yes and no. For archival purposes, and for communicating between systems that have no other joint language, converting even very large structures into an XML encoding (OpenMath or MathML) may make sense. On the other hand for two processes that are sharing some gigabyte matrix computation, clearly they are going to pass binary data, the draft openmath standard explictly advocates three levels of comunication. (See figure 2.1 in the introduction). Processes may share internal private representations (if they have the same representation) or they may share internal versions of the OpenMath object, or they may communicate via an external representation of the object (XML or binary encoding for OpenMath). The situation for MathML is broadly similar. Also, for manipulating MathML objects without serialising to an XML linear representation, the MathML2 drafts have introduced the MathML DOM specification (Chapter 8) that should provide a standard API for manipulating these objects. David (wearing both MathML and OpenMath hats)
Received on Tuesday, 11 April 2000 14:01:43 UTC