Le 09-sept.-08 à 18:08, Michael Kohlhase a écrit :
Formal properties are subject of debate here I think. Thus far they'reThis could also be the problem of the whole thing. You (quite rightly Ipushed to the appendix in MathML-3 spec but kept core in OpenMath3.think base your discussoins on FMPs (or equivalently <properties> from MathML). But these are non-normative in the spec and not part of the description.
Lack of such may mean non interoperability... but... who knows... let's give it try.
So in this light, the descriptions in the MathML3 spec willonly give an overview over the symbols provided by MathML3 and relegateadditional questions to the CDs.[...]I think that we should see this as an opportunity to take advantage of.The <Description> elements should be self-contained and understandable for K-14 literates. The rest of the CDs will give more meaning, if the CD author can be bothered to write it down. As such, theinteroperability question discussed below are at the FMP level (i.e. in the rest of the CD) and in particular not in Chapter 4 of the MathML3 spec.
So you believe there is a possibility to write the descriptions that will sip into chapter 4 readable by a "K14-literate"? Can you elaborate here, does it mean a starting student at a university in Europe or elsewhere?
As per my first mail in this thread, you can see I doubt of that."a minimal wording for interoperability between expected processors that can be read by normal engineers with some time to read extra references" is the best I can suggest as a description of the descriptions... it is not "k14-readable' to my taste!
paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
