From: JB Collins <joebmath@yahoo.com>

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 04:20:17 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <20050203122017.8082.qmail@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

To: RobertM@dessci.com, www-math@w3.org

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 04:20:17 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <20050203122017.8082.qmail@web31103.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

To: RobertM@dessci.com, www-math@w3.org

I am recently familiar with the <csymbol> construct. As I understand it, it supports user extensibility. I was also wondering how the process works (if there is one) whereby some concepts become standard rather than merely user extensions. I chose the delta function as an example because it seems to be a purely mathematical concept with general utility (and I need it too!). Another capabilty I really need is support for representing tensors, as metric spaces are a core bit of mathematics required for physics. (As soon as I want to use grad, div, curl in non-cartesian spaces, I really need a metric tensor). After extensive search, I haven't found much "ready-to-use" from the physics-specific perspective. I intend to change that. I believe I need to begin with MathML and possibly OpenMath, since they are web-based and provide a lot to build on. From time to time, such as above, I would like to suggest additions to MathML and/or OpenMath and would like to know how to do that. You mention some things about the relationship between MathML and OpenMath, which I am interested to hear more about. I am also recently familiar with OpenMath, and have spent some hours at their website. (I wonder if I shouldn't be cross-posting). While I am happy to receive pointers on the specifics of those standards, since I am relatively new to both, a significant part of my participation in the www-math forum is to get a handle on the philosophy to apply in deciding when I should, for example, be using MathML and when I should be using OpenMath constructs. Before you say "use them interchangeably" let me cast my vote for a unified standard, or at least a unified set of recommendations to the user. Please correct my perception: I see two standards that are informally linked and promoted by two different organizations. The cooperation appears to be due to an overlap of goals and personnel, but is not otherwise formalized. The result for me, as a user, is consistency, but also a fair degree of redundancy and some resulting confusion. Those things being said, I am going to take your response as guidance that says something like "when concepts are defined in MathML, use them; when they are not, for user extensibility, rely on OpenMath." As an additional question to throw in, I am also interested in knowing if MathML / OpenMath borrow or cooperate with the MIZAR project. While I started this thread on the MathML reflector, you pointed to OpenMath and its use for interchanging documents for theorem provers. The MIZAR project provides a similar capability. While they seem primarily focused on supporting mathematicians, there seems to be a lot to borrow from. I am a physicist/computer scientist, interested in representing and supporting the validation of physics-based numerical models generally, from the conceptual, mathematical statements, encapsulated as a coherent model, to the translation of that model so as to incorporate mathematical approximations, and then to the translation of an encapsulated, approximative model to a discrete, numerical model. In the short term, I think supporting documentation and user access to physics-based models is a reasonable compromise. Perhaps this answers your question about what I really want to do, and that IS the more ambitious goal of creating a web-based standard - most likely coupled to the use of TeX/LaTex, the de facto standard for many technical authors. I am very interested in enrolling collaborators. Since I see what I want to do as an application of MathML, perhaps this (www-math) is an appropriate forum for doing so. Regards, Joe Collins Naval Research Laboratory __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mailReceived on Thursday, 3 February 2005 12:20:48 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:57 GMT
*