I haven’t made any scientific investigations, but it seems clear to me that this hinders improvement of notation. However, there’s a huge number of articles that would have to changed if some notation actually was to be consistently adopted. I haven’t thought this through, but that might even be a practical application of basic category theory ) BTW this also has the advantage that a user doesn’t have to learn the language again and again.Īs far as I can see, there’s a lot of discussion about notational conventions on nLab, e.g. ![]() One could even imagine a versioning and migration scheme to implement the global refactorings I mentioned in my first post. I’m sure there’s a solution for that: A vocabulary could be modelled in a distributed fashion much like OWL ontologies or XML Schema Definitions, which allow for importing other “vocabularies” (ontologies/schemata). It would actually hinder collaboration as everyone would have to learn the local conventions every time they wanted to edit a page, and stuff that worked on one wouldn’t work on another. An implementation of this idea might use Turing-complete macros, but would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |