Michael and Paul wrote -- > > 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, the > > interoperability 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?
My understanding of this would be: That the mathematical ideas/words in the description should mostly be understandable by most people who have both: -- successfully completed such a mathematical training (although they may have to go and look in wikipedia for some bits that they did not cover or have forgotten); -- and still have some interest in the maths and the motivation to understand the descriptions. [I am fairly sure that in at least one European country 2 does not apply to most starting maths students and maybe not 1!] Opinion: I think that this class of people must be a superset of this class: of -- engineers who would normally be expected to need to understand the maths in these descriptions. > 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! @Michael: does your informal definition agree with mine? @Doubting Paul: does this help? chris _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
