Re: YASP (yet another semantics proposal)

Hi Neil,

I am still not sure that I understand what is the idea of this
proposal. Who should use it for which purpose?

Bruce and the DLMF team can express semantics using a cosine (and for
mathematicians relatively easy to understand) set of LaTeX macros.
For example

https://dlmf.nist.gov/5.2#E1

has additional semantics for the components. I think it would be great
if one could use similar mechanisms to achieve that on other platforms
such as zbMATH or Wikipedia and many other places.
We could now say, everyone, shall use LaTeXML and the semantic LaTeX
macros. But this is not the idea of standardization efforts. Instead,
I would imagine a common notation for this kind of semantics.

I am currently aware of three approaches for semantic annotations.
1) Use semantic LaTeX as the DLMF does
2) Use RDF tripels in addition to the LaTeX code as Wikipedia
currently does https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MathWikibase&qid=Q1899432
3) Generate semantics from the standard LaTeX as the speech rule
engine does https://github.com/zorkow/speech-rule-engine

All three can in theory capture that in your first example $A^T$ A is
matrix and T is the transpose. However, what does transpose mean? For
the DLMF it is https://dlmf.nist.gov/front/introduction#common.p2.t1.r8
and for Wikipedia, it would be https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q223683
both definitions could be modeled using contributed/unofficial content
dictionaries http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2307/paper52.pdf and
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2307/paper51.pdf .

Obviously the generation of the correct content MathML tree requires
at least proper definitions for all the symbols involved. In the end,
think in addition to the definition list, we want to have a semantic
tree as visualized in

http://vmext.wmflabs.org/ast-renderer.html

generating this tree from only LaTeX and the Wikidata information
requires additional information on the operators and symbols involved
to disambiguate different possible content trees. Here LaTeXMLs model
is a bit more straight forward, but still, the generation of correct
content MathML output (which would be required for the visualization)
is as far as I know not yet fully implemented.

This is my view on semantics. Given that background, I do not understand how

transpose(@matrix)

would be helpful to understand that T denotes transpose. Is there some
internal library, such as the Math glossary from Abdou Youssef
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62075-6_25 that defines that
transpose is associated with T.
At least this link would be usefull for the semantic tree
visualization and interactive screensreaders such as chromevox.
Or am I completely on the wrong track and your semantic annotations
are not related the the things I was talking about?

All the best
Moritz





http://moritzschubotz.de | +49 1578 047 1397



On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:59 AM Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Based on the call today, I've come up with a different proposal from Bruce's semantics proposal that may or may not be the idea that Deyan was thinking of. I wrote up something that mostly parallels what Bruce wrote and copied most of the examples he had and marked them up with this new proposal.
>
> It is at: https://mathml-refresh.github.io/mathml/docs/function-semantics
>
> Feedback is welcome. I'm sure there are plenty of typos and maybe some things that aren't clear; hopefully it is understandable. We'll go over this next week along with any other proposals people come up with.
>
>    Neil
>
>

Received on Friday, 19 June 2020 17:35:36 UTC