- From: Deyan Ginev <deyan.ginev@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 10:37:36 -0400
- To: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
- Cc: public-mathml4@w3.org
Thanks for starting that list Sam and Neil! I would volunteer the following notable names for consideration in our meeting discussion, as possible extensions. It may help to draw contrasts to your pragmatic cMML list and quickly reject/accept types of names, so that we figure out what gives a name the right to "go in" vs stay out of the level 1 list of meanings: 1. all SI units and imperial units 2. other notable K12 constants from STEM e.g. - chemistry: all atoms from the table of elements, molecule, Avogadro's number/mole - math: geometric constructs (angle, segment, point) 3. notable K12 operators from STEM e.g. - chemistry: reaction arrows - math: different kinds of intervals (open-closed, closed-open), geometric relations (parallel to, intersecting), piecewise function definitions - more math: modulo, divisible by 4. notable K12 properties from STEM e.g. - chemistry: "positive/negative ions" (usually denoted via msup-plus, msup-minus over an atom base)) - physics: the little arrows denoting "force", e.g. \vec{F} Of course I don't expect us to cover the entire K12 curriculum's concepts in an initial list, and likely there is a good argument to be made about a very small core list, and adjacent level 2, level 3 lists with hundreds and then thousands of concepts that are not normative. I'm curious to hear how everyone is thinking about conceptually separating the levels, and about the degree to which the group would have a burden to maintain these lists going forward. I could also imagine "blessing" an external resource as a source of provenance for these names, e.g. "any official meaning literal must have a wikipedia page/wikidata resource". As a reminder, my main focus is coverage, as my main application scenario is enriching arXiv, so apologies that I keep drifting to the topic of maximizing breadth. Greetings, Deyan On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:58 PM Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > We meet again on Thursday, 6 August at 10am Pacific, 1pm Eastern, 7pm Central European Time. > > Agenda: > 1. Charter comments, suggestions, discussion > 2. Sam and I have created an initial list based on pragmatic MathML > a) Discussion of how the list was created, etc > b) Are more fields needed/existing fields need changing? > c) What should be removed (some are clearly not appropriate)? > d) What should be added? > e) Names -- naming scheme and do we want to keep some content MathML names (e.g., "lt" or spell out as "lessthan")? > 3) Continued discussion on "semantics" > > The zoom meeting link is the same one we used last week. Hopefully the calendar invite doesn't have any more hidden bad links. Due to zoombombing, I can't send it out to the public mailing list. If you would like to join and don't have the link, please send me email at least 10 minutes before the meeting.
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2020 14:38:15 UTC