From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3309.217.124.69.209.1145028439.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT)

Message-ID: <3309.217.124.69.209.1145028439.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

Romeo Anghelache, It is rather surprising that one can claim that HERMES is generating semantic content, when articles generated from HERMES looks like --------------------- REAL CODE <…> <p> </p> <h3>2001-07-09</h3> <p> </p> <p class="abstract"> <p> <span class="fn"> </span><span class="fb">Abstract </span><span class="fn">We review the present status of black hole thermodynamics. Our review includes discussion of classical black hole thermodynamics, Hawking radiation from black holes, the generalized second law, and the issue of entropy bounds. A brief survey also is given of approaches to the calculation of black hole entropy. We conclude with a discussion of some unresolved open issues. </span> </p> </p> <p> <…> ----------------------------------------------------------- Is the use of empty paragraphs for simulating layouts, headings of level 3 for encoding dates, and others points you mean by “semantic”? Do you name “semantic” the next encoding generated by HERMES <h3><a href="http://surubi.fis.uncor.edu/reula">Oscar A. Reula</a></h3>? Uff! Author encoded as heading of the document! Moreover, the mathematical code presents in the articles generated by Hermes are not verifying accessibility, structure is far from good, and several equations are rendered via “tricks”. For example, in “Hyperbolic methods for Einstein’s Equations” [http://hermes.aei.mpg.de/1998/3/article.xhtml] one reads (before equation 2): \epsilon _{abcd} is the Levi-Civita tensor corresponding to the physical metric The underlying math is not encoded via tensors but <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <msub> <mrow> <mi>ε</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>a</mi> <mi>b</mi> <mi>c</mi> <mi>d</mi> </mrow> </msub> </math> <span class="fi"> </span><span class="fn">is the Levi-Civita tensor corresponding to the physical metric, </span> Sorry, but I cannot call that "good code", because the Tensor is being rendered via a ***visual*** forcing of subscripts instead via multiscript tag of MathML 2.0 And what about the redundancy of MathML ½ in equation 2? and what about the "terrorific" code of equation 3? Do you name “semantic” content to encoding of “integral on s” like <mo>∫</mo><mi>d</mi><mi>s</mi>? (equation 10 of [http://hermes.aei.mpg.de/1998/1/article.xhtml]) Do you consider correct the l_Planck of equation (24)? Do you know for what was <mtext> designed? And what about the equation (25) of [http://hermes.aei.mpg.de/2005/2/article.xhtml]? The Gamma *there* is a tensor, but is encoded as subscript ab and superscript j with several redundant mrows. Is that you call good semantic content? And what about the metric equation just after the section 2.1? This is one of my favourites: accesibility, structure, "semantics", encoding, and rendering are all wrong. One find a line element ds^2. If my math is correct ds^2 = (ds)^2 but the code appear in the journal article generated via HERMES is <mi>d</mi> <msup> <mrow> <mi>s</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </msup> That is, d{s}^2 (or 2s ds), which is VERY different from (ds)^2 is supposed to be encoded via your "semantic" approach. and all that even ignoring that one would type the differential using the MathML entity instead of identifier "d". Really do I need to continue writing samples of incorrect output you are serving to the world? I wrote to you in the past, because I was critizing HERMES approach and I consider that when one is critized, one would be informed for one can reply if consider needed. That is also the reason I said that about NAG and New York Journal of Mathematics recently I consider that people would obtain opportunity to read I am writing and reply if consider needed. About the “canonical science site” I already said many occasions that site was experimental and very wrong in many points. Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)Received on Friday, 14 April 2006 15:27:32 GMT

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