- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 23:28:32 +0200
- To: NeilS@dessci.com
- CC: Bernhard Keil <Bernhard.Keil@soft4science.com>, Robert Miner <RobertM@dessci.com>, www-math@w3.org

Neil Soiffer wrote: > > While I agree that this is needed for 100% certainty, you wouldn't > do that if you were reading a paper containing it. If the software doing > the conversion has information about the context (eg, by user control or > metadata extraction), it can make these transformation with very high > reliablility. There is an important point about notation: it is meant > to imply underlying functionality. If it is ambigious within its context, > it is probably confusing to readers and will eventually die a timely death. Waw, I wish I could be so optimistic... As others state the "conversion", does, I believe need some intelligence and, not the least, some "contextualization". Aside of the computer-algebra systems (Maple, Mathematica, soon MuPad, GAP, Yacas) which generate MathML-content at least from within their human-readable syntax, I would note two more things (not really inputting MathML-presentation): -> the QMath processor (start at http://www.matracas.org/) is a tool which accepts a textual syntax closer to that of these computer-algebra-systems and creates OpenMath out of it (which then not too hard to convert into MathML-content). QMath is extensible and can, with some work (the contextualization), be used to convert formulae in a TeX source into formulae in OpenMath -> the efforts of the team of Stephen Watt at ORCCA (Londong, Ontario) which have a LaTeX to MathML trying to convert most possible LaTeX into some semantic encoding (which gets enriched as it goes), producing the conversion-stylesheets to MathML-presentation as well And I think and wish I had forgotten others. Paul

Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 17:28:43 UTC