- From: Paul Libbrecht <paul@activemath.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:21:27 +0100
- To: JB Collins <joebmath@yahoo.com>, www-math@w3.org

Dear Joe, I have been at a talk which describes a movement that seems to go in the direction you wish. The markup being considered is something which definitely goes beyond the current MathML-content or OpenMath, although it could, I presume, all be all expressed using symbols in these languages. Among others, the qualifications of observables and units was considered. The talk was at the Hermes workshop last year and was given by Thomas Severiens. Slides can be found from the workshop page: http://www.aei.mpg.de/hermes/w20041026/ paul Le 22 janv. 05, à 14:29, JB Collins a écrit : > I am interested in representing equations in physics > using content MathML. This is something I'm new to, so > I'm exploring the ability of MathML to help me. > > One deficit in the math concepts I have found so far > is that the Dirac Delta Function is not represented. > Is this correct? > > I am aware of the recommendation regarding physical > units. This does not, however, cover the full semantic > information that representing an equation in physics > requires. Here are some other requirements: > > (1) A key requirement is to represent, for example, > that /rho represents the density of a certain physical > object. > > (2) I might also want to give names to certain > constructs, such as NewtonianSpaceTime for the > specific instance of a metric-space (and time) of > Newtonian physics, or the name of Newtons2ndLaw to a > statement about F=ma. > > (3) Vectors are often elements of NewtonianSpaceTime. > Can I declare them to be of that type? I would also > like to declare PhysicalObject as a class. Can I do > this? > > Any insights are welcome. > > Regards, > Joe C.

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2005 22:22:03 UTC