On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > Dear Developers of the Semantic Math Approaches, > > I am stepping back a bit about the content-discussion, I think we've gone too > far: > Allow me to doubt about the intent "K14" for the MathML content symbol > descriptions. > It is probably a nice dream but is, to my taste, not realistic and not useful. > K14 is certainly not 'semantically closed', so trying to make the WHOLE description K14 is, as Paul says, not realistic. > I had always understood the K12 or K14 target of MathML3 as being "the set of > symbols corresponds to these that one would commonly accept at a person that > has about 14 years of learning in his or her life". That is, to my taste, is > acceptable but very different. As had I. > As for the OpenMath CDs or MathML chapter 4 descriptions, I just feel they > need to be minimal enough to be interoperable. This is what I can see in the This, I think, if where the debate SHOULD be. > current OpenMath CDs, maybe this can be enhanced a bit but not under the > perspective of a joe-bo-student-that-is-starting-at-the-university. Agreed.
James _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
