W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Semantic information for math representations of physics

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

Maybe I threw you off at the brief reference to

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

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

Have I cleared up your confusion?

Thank you for suggesting gellmu as a tool. Do you have
a website or preferred reference?

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!
Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 18:32:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:27:36 UTC