RE: [office] OpenFormula definitions for ODF 1.4

Hi Patrick, Svante

I take Andreasâ point about there being inconsistency in mathematical definitions â 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 😉) a good idea to have agreed, consistent definitions for the constructs being applied.

I wouldnât waste too much time on seeking out good definitions of things that are already (if unnecessarily) defined in the ODF specification. Thatâs water under the bridge.

For any new features, including new/improved functions in OpenFormula, it would be worth looking for a reliable external definition before drafting a new definition to put in the specification. But thereâs no point referring to a definition in an ISO standard that is stuck behind a paywall, so I agree with Svante that open standard definitions are definitely the ones to look out for.

Kind regards,

Francis

From: office@lists.oasis-open.org <office@lists.oasis-open.org> On Behalf Of Svante Schubert
Sent: 20 October 2020 08:43
To: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
Cc: ODF TC List <office@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: Re: [office] OpenFormula definitions for ODF 1.4

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

office message