From: JB Collins <joebmath@yahoo.com>

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:32:17 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <20050203183217.44897.qmail@web31110.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

To: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, www-math@w3.org

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 10:32:17 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <20050203183217.44897.qmail@web31110.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

To: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>, www-math@w3.org

Maybe I threw you off at the brief reference to TeX/LaTeX. What I want to do is to provide a mechanism for documenting models. The Navy (and DoD) makes extensive use of physics-based models, and wants to incorporate them into modeling and simulation architectures where they would be used by non-experts. The process of determining the appropriateness for using a given model for a given application is a difficult one, even for the well-informed. The models require semantic level documentation. The current form of the models that are passed around are discretized implementations of mathematical models that were usually documented as a separate exercise long before and far removed from the computer codes. Good documentation of the models requires connecting the discrete models, i.e., computer codes, with the mathematical models that they are implementations of. In coming up with an approach to dealing with this problem, I decided I need an expressive mechanism to document the models at the mathematical level, e.g.,in terms of real and complex numbers. I also need documented, traceable mappings to the discrete implementation of a model, e.g., a specific integral maps to a to a specific discrete sum. My comment about linkage to TeX/LaTeX arises from the following consideration. I need to provide a mechanism to get this documentation from its author to a user. TeX/LaTeX is the de facto standard application (some would say) for documentation by those who develop, author, and publish mathematical models. Given that, it seems to me that semantic level of representation of mathematical models needs to begin embedded in a LaTeX document even though it may end up on the web in XML. It seems to me that others are thinking along these lines as well. (Set me straight if you think otherwise). I am still exploring available tools and trying to define exactly what I need to build for myself. Have I cleared up your confusion? Thank you for suggesting gellmu as a tool. Do you have a website or preferred reference? Regards, Joe Collins Naval Research Lab --- William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu> wrote: > > JB Collins <joebmath@yahoo.com> writes: > > > . . . > > 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 must confess confusion about exactly what you want > to do. > > It may (or may not) be helpful for you to know that > gellmu provides a > bridge from LaTeX to XML in various ways. Its > "article" document type > has (and eventually will have more) element > attributes for providing > the level of extensibility an author might want in > order to have > translation to semantic formats. Moreover, it > should be possible > using gellmu's newcommand facility to write things > out concisely. > > -- Bill __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.comReceived on Thursday, 3 February 2005 18:32:49 GMT

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