From: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:46:04 +0000

Message-ID: <SNT138-W63F94BA22C2EE3EE570E7DC5420@phx.gbl>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

CC: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 19:46:04 +0000

Message-ID: <SNT138-W63F94BA22C2EE3EE570E7DC5420@phx.gbl>

To: <www-math@w3.org>

CC: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>

Math Working Group, Hello. I would like to indicate some temporal approaches to these topics. Approaches include: SMIL3 (http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL3/), SMIL timesheets (http://www.w3.org/TR/timesheets/), timesheets.js (http://wam.inrialpes.fr/timesheets/), and a University of Arizona project, TAU (http://www.cs.arizona.edu/projects/tau/). Kind regards, Adam Sobieski > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:22:39 +0000 > From: davidc@nag.co.uk > To: www-math@w3.org > Subject: Re: Using content-MathML for computation and analysis in Science and Engineering > > On 19/03/2012 08:31, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: > > I have now made progress on my MathCML engine (combined mathematics and > > chemistry). I have been much encouraged by this list and hope I may > > continue to ask questions - any progress I make is updated at > > https://www.bitbucket.org/petermr/mathml. > > > > One of my uses is to chain simple statements sequentially as in a > > computer program, such as > > > > x=1 > > y=2 > > r=x+y > > x=9 > > > > and turn it into: > > > > <math> // I shall omit namespaces for brevity > > <apply><eq/><ci>x</ci><cn>1</cn></apply> > > <apply><eq/><ci>y</ci><cn>2</cn></apply> > > <apply><eq/><ci>r</ci><apply><plus/><ci>x</ci><ci>y</ci></apply></apply> > > <apply><eq/><ci>x</ci><cn>9</cn></apply> > > </math> > > > > Can I check that this is (a) valid MathML and (b) > > stylistically/semantically acceptable MathML? > > (a) Looks valid to me, > on (b) a couple of mild suggestions that may reduce confusion if that > were to escape into the wild out of a controlled world where you can > assert the desired implementation. > > 1) > MathML allows multiple top level terms but doesn't assign any meaning to > that, so it might be easier to give meaning (and future flexibility) if > you had a top level container, could be as simple as > <math><list>....</list></math> > or you could have a custom container > <math><apply><csymbol>cmmlist</csymbol>....</apply></math> > or you could keep it as it is. > > 2) I think most systems will have a default interpretation of <eq/> as > an equality test rather than an imperative assignment, and so interpret > the above as an insoluble set of equations. Probably I'd use something > like <csymbol>define</csymbol> rather than <eq/>. > > > > > > My understanding of the discussion so far is that the "x" in line 1 may > > or may not be the "same as" the "x" in line 3; that MathML is silent on > > this. If so it is legitimate for me to assume it is. It is also > > legitimate for me to assume it carries the value 1 to line 3 and that > > "r" could be evaluated as 3. (It is aso legitimate for others to assert > > that they don't accept these semantics). There is also no universal > > agreed terminology that I can use to enforce my interpretation. That I > > have to use a content dictionary (cd) to make that assertion and that > > (probably) I have to do this in human language > > yes, I think I agree with that. > > > > > If this is agreed then I shall continue on this basis. What are the > > potential dangers other than other MATHML users misunderstanding what I > > am doing? > > none really. Well all the usual ones such as if your interpretation of > the standard symbols is sufficiently far from someone else's it makes it > a bit harder to share expressions with that other system, but perhaps > that doesn't really make sense in this context.. > > > > More generally my engine will wish to manage objects other than pure > > maths objects (e.g. molecules). Can I assume that as long as I simply > > expose the symbols and not the detailed structure MathML will not care. > > For example: > > > > > > <apply> > > <sum/> > > <bvar> > > <ci> bond </ci> > > </bvar> > > <condition> > > <apply> > > <in/> > > <ci> bond </ci> > > <ci type="set"> bondSet </ci> > > </apply> > > </condition> > > <apply> > > <ci type="fn"> bondLength </ci> > > <ci> bond </ci> > > </apply> > > </apply> > > > > > will apply the function "bondLength" to a set "bondSet" (which happens > > to be a set of bonds) > > For symbols with defined semantics as opposed to free variables in the > particular expression it's better to use csymbol rather than ci so > <csymbol>bondLength</csymbol> > > > > If so, are they stylistic and semantic conventions I should be aware of? > > > > David > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England > and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: > Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is > powered by MessageLabs. > ________________________________________________________________________ >Received on Monday, 19 March 2012 19:46:37 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Monday, 19 March 2012 19:46:38 GMT
*