Le 25-sept.-08 à 11:14, Jan Willem Knopper a écrit :
I would claim that it is EXACTLY the same (and therefore redundant). I doChris Rowley wrote:I would assume a rel b rel c is almost the same as a rel b and b rel c(where rel is a relation).not know where it conveys different information, and if it does, it certainly needs documenting, so Michael's "making them n-ary" doesn't work....As I said, I'm not sure I understand why you would want the SEMANTICS ofthis, as I am not sure what they are.You have convinced me. There are no obvious semantics differences here, and I am not sure enough that I actually need anything like the semantics of a formula manipulation.
I think the ball is on your side Jan Willem... many users and user- guides (e.g. teachers) will want something to look like a<b<c and other such...
- how are you going to offer this to users ? (e.g. wiris input editor does it by reparsing the mathml-p) - how are you going to express the underlying OpenMath (as above I suppose)
I think the first question is crucial and needs an elaborate answer much further than "just apply this symbol here" as is done with most "simple application symbols".
It probably is a general issue of binary operators. paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
