One question comes to my mind after reading this. Did they contact anyone about OpenMath / Content MathML?
I only see conclusions based on very narrow observations. Regards, Manfred From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christoph LANGE Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2010 9:41 AM To: OpenMath Subject: [Om] Interesting review of OpenMath Dear OpenMath community, in the context of the FMathL project (http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/FMathL.html) - which some of you may remember from a talk at CICM 2009 - OpenMath and Content MathML have been reviewed for their utility w.r.t. the FMathL goals: http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/FMathL/openmath-limitations.pdf http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/FMathL/content-mathml-limitations.pdf Some of the comments are IMHO inappropriate; for example they criticize the language and CDs of OM/CMML for not being close enough to mathematical paper notation and not concise enough, whereas the main objective for OM/CMML is machine-comprehensibility, and authoring should hopefully be supported by software. Other comments could, however, be valuable. In a nutshell, as far as I understand it, the FMathL vision is so big that no existing language is adequate to it. FMathL is envisioned as a universal mathematics language both comprehensible to humans (targeting working mathematicians) and machines. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3283 - Release Date: 11/27/10
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
