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

Re: consuming the semantic tag (was Re: Subscripts in Content MathML)

From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:13:44 +0200
Message-Id: <a7cd514cba69606dc98c05d06b2ad2c6@activemath.org>
Cc: www-math@w3.org
To: Stan Devitt <jsdevitt@stratumtek.com>

Stan,

I would like to see who is using the semantic tag and how.
I think the semantic tag can allow applications to embed these semantic 
markups so that a copy and paste, for example, can happen on the 
expression (moreover, subexpressions can be selected and copied if 
parallel markup is used).

The issue I have with the semantic tag is how to specify which semantic 
tag to take ?

Indeed, your extended sum-with-elipsis would fit if the client 
application would support it and should be converted to an official sum 
if not.
So we would have at least the following flavours:
- matml-content:official-symbols
- mathml-content:official-symbols-plus-some-more-of-system-x
- 
mathml-content:official-symbols-plus-some-more-of-system-x-and-system-y
Are these "sets-of-symbols" (somewhat equivalent to OpenMath cdgroups) 
well and declaratively defined ? Should they be part of mime-types ??
   application/xml+mathml-content+some-more-of-x
This would integrate in such exchange systems as copy and paste or 
drag-and-drop.

I have a further complaint about the semantic-element: they're 
expensive! If you start having at least, say, two 
sets-of-supported-symbols, then you have, at delivery time, to output 
two times the semantic content for each formulae, every time rephrased. 
I tend to believe that expecting clients to request from the server at 
a URL representing the content, using a similar negotiation (be it 
mime-types based or something else), would yield much better 
performances and more translation mechanisms possible.
Any experience in this direction ?

thanks

paul

Le 8 oct. 05, à 03:07, Stan Devitt a écrit :

> On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 09:40:59AM +0200, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> Regarding your question on the need for transforms, there is also the 
> semantics tag.  Using that, you can expose the "constructor" (i.e., my 
> extended markup) , "presentation mathml", "markup for system A", 
> "markup for System b", etc. all as a group of alternative 
> representations and your application is supposed to choose the most 
> appropriate one (or provide a mechanism for you to make that 
> selection) for its purpose.
>
> The semantics tag is in part designed to get around the problem of 
> having to do transformations at run time.
>
> The semantics tag could also give you a way of providing something to 
> be matched in a search.
>
> Of course, this approach does require that applications take the 
> semantics tag seriously and there will no doubt arise some interesting 
> problems around how to choose one of the views.
>
> In fact, I suspect the work that is needed is in providing some 
> systematic way of identifying what you want in a semantics group.
Received on Tuesday, 11 October 2005 23:37:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 20 February 2010 06:12:58 GMT