Professor James Davenport wrote: >> So can we get a consensus here? We have a telcon this afternoon, where >> we can probably decide this. So if I interpret what I have seen, your >> preference would be: >> >> 1. relation symbols are binary!!!! >> > Yes. > >> 2. we still have pragmatic MathML of the form >> <apply><eq/>a b c</apply> >> but that will be translated to >> <apply> >> <csymbol cd="logic1">and</csymbol> >> <apply><csymbol cd="relation1">eq</csmbol>a b</csmbol></apply> >> <apply><csymbol cd="relation1">eq</csmbol>b c</csmbol></apply> >> </apply> >> in the content to strict translation. >> > and for the other transitive ones (> etc), but NOT for neq. > we do not have a problem here, since MathML2 never said that they were nary, it only did for positive ones. > I don't know what to do about a<b>c etc.: as far as I can tell pragmatic > did not have them, so we shouldn't add them. > Ditto a>b,c>d, which seems to have no clear semantics. > James >
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase, Office: Research 1, Room 62 Professor of Computer Science Campus Ring 12, School of Engineering & Science D-28759 Bremen, Germany Jacobs University Bremen* tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kwarc.info/kohlhase skype: m.kohlhase * International University Bremen until Feb. 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
