OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

Greetings, The comment by Francis Cave today about not repeating definitions made elsewhere prompted me to think about our replication of common mathematical definitions in OpenFormula. It maybe that too much has been invested in them to change now but for the future, should we consider referencing a known source of formulas for formal definition? ISO defines symbols for math, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:80000:-2:en , all hidden from the public of course, functions anyone? I don't know of any. Hope everyone is at the start of a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau

Hi, Mathematical definitions are surprisingly inconsistent. For example all of matrix theory comes in two presentation (one being the transpose of the other). From a mathematical point of view it does not matter if we mean left or right eigenvectors when we say eigenvectors but from a spreadsheet point of view it is essential which ones we are talking about. Andreas On 2020-10-19 8:18 p.m., Patrick Durusau wrote: Greetings, The comment by Francis Cave today about not repeating definitions made elsewhere prompted me to think about our replication of common mathematical definitions in OpenFormula. It maybe that too much has been invested in them to change now but for the future, should we consider referencing a known source of formulas for formal definition? ISO defines symbols for math, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:80000:-2:en , all hidden from the public of course, functions anyone? I don't know of any. Hope everyone is at the start of a great day! Patrick -- Andreas J. Guelzow, PhD FTICA Registrar & Associate Vice-President, Enrolment and Planning Professor, Mathematical & Computing Sciences Direct: +1 780 479 9290 Toll-Free: +1 866 479 5200 concordia.ab.ca

Hi Patrick, I do like the idea of Francis to refer to existing definitions, still, this definition should be public free available not behind a paywall. Similar comments for corrections to this definition should be able to be made by everyone and not only by a club of paying members. If we are an open standard, we should aim to refer only to open standards. In the end, I can personally trust an ISO standard only as much as I can trust Wiki - ie. I like to have it reviewed by someone I can trust.;-) Best regards, Svante Am Di., 20. Okt. 2020 um 04:18 Uhr schrieb Patrick Durusau < patrick@durusau.net >: Greetings, The comment by Francis Cave today about not repeating definitions made elsewhere prompted me to think about our replication of common mathematical definitions in OpenFormula. It maybe that too much has been invested in them to change now but for the future, should we consider referencing a known source of formulas for formal definition? ISO defines symbols for math, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:80000:-2:en , all hidden from the public of course, functions anyone? I don't know of any. Hope everyone is at the start of a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Technical Advisory Board, OASIS (TAB) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Hi Patrick, Svante   I take Andreas point about there being inconsistency in mathematical definitions actually, in pure mathematics this is crucial, since it is essentially a creative discipline in which looking at something in a new way, tweaking the definitions in possibly inconsistent ways, often leads to new insights. However, in applied mathematics it is generally (although possibly not always, especially if you are a spelunker