W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-math@w3.org > February 2006

Choosing a notation for CanonMath (review of MathML)

From: <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4678.217.124.88.215.1140201366.squirrel@webmail.canonicalscience.com>
To: <www-math@w3.org>

---Introduction---

I am developing the CanonML language (version 1.0) as a way to
generate, store, and publish canonical science documents on the
Internet. This language will be the basis for the next version 2.0 of
the website of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE). The current
preliminary version -in proof stage- has been developed on XHTML
1.1 + MathML 2.0 language without semantics add (e.g. there exists not use
of &lt;h1> or &lt;p>) but semantic will be added in next version.

We wait see the CanonML language like an advanced proposal for the
generation of next generation of academic electronic datuments.

The CanonML language and related software we will develop (XSLTs, etc.)
will be open source; anyone can use, personalize, and generalize it. We
wait some technical advice and help in those issues.

We wait the WG will provide some technical advice in the development of
the CanonMath input syntax for MathML [www.w3.org/Math/mathml-faq.html].

XHTML (including the future XHTML 2.0) and MathML or specific languages
as Docbook do not fit all our requirements -for example, we need
specific scientific requirements for &lt;chemistry> are not fulfilled
even by the specialized CML-, therein the need for the generic CanonML
language.

Currently, &lt;CanonML> is splinted into three modules: &lt;CanonText>,
&lt;CanonGraph>, and &lt;CanonMath>. CanonText is ready, but the
development of CanonGraph has been stopped until a better browsers'
support of vectorial graphics. Our current emphasis is on CanonMath.

The main aims of CanonML language are: simplicity, completeness, and
semantic-oriented. For instance, CanonText achieve the semantic level
of XHTML 2.0 for general text but being more accessible and optimised
than later. The optimisation is largely an outcome of the application
of basic generic ideas from canonical science ontology. This relative
success reinforces our initial supposition on the power of canonical
science.

---Why another syntax for math?---

After of a relatively intense research of the present and future
capabilities of TeX/LaTeX, IteX, ASCIIMath, and the two standard MathML
syntaxes, I have discarded them as basic input syntaxes for the math
module of the CanonML language. In fact, as cited above
[www.w3.org/Math/mathml-faq.html] even the W3C recognizes the need for
easy input-sintaxes for MathML.

Notations for chemistry also are partially discussed: The mhchem chemical
package and ConTexT approaches are not suitable input syntaxes for
chemical formulae.

---Poll on CanonMath notation---

I am doing a poll for choosing the final notation of CanonMath for
introducing mathematical formulas in XML documents.

Comments, heavy criticism, suggestions, and varied opinions are welcomed.

---Source---

Information available (size: more than 10 A4 pages) at:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/02/choosing-notationsyntax-for-canonmath.html


-- 

Juan R.

Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2006 06:56:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:40 UTC