- From: Patrick Ion <ion@ams.org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 15:44:58 -0400
- To: "<juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>" <juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com>
- Cc: <www-math@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <78B79E24-33A1-4E4C-A15E-2D239983A8F9@ams.org>
Dear Juan, In another message you bring up some, at first glance amusing, results from Google Trends. But I think that mention of them in this discussion is probably specious. Google Trends says of itself <<< Google Trends aims to provide insights into broad search patterns. As a Google Labs product, it is still in the early stages of development. Also, it is based upon just a portion of our searches, and several approximations are used when computing your results. Please keep this in mind when using it. <<< The first thing one notes about the graphs is that there seems to be no vertical scale. This makes them hard to interpret rationally. Scientific data without scales is not very helpful. In any case, you point out disparagingly that MathML is a flat line relative to CSS: http://www.google.com/trends?q=MathML%2C+CSS&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all I note that SGML is a flat line relative to CSS or XML. http://www.google.com/trends?q=SGML%2CCSS%2CXML&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all I remark that ISO 12083 does not have enough search volume to show graphs, http://www.google.com/trends?q=ISO%2012083&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all though MathML does. http://www.google.com/trends?q=MathML&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all CML does only because it can mean many things, http://www.google.com/trends?q=CML&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all CellML and MatML do not, though both are significant. http://www.google.com/trends?q=CellML&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all http://www.google.com/trends?q=MatML&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all Results for CSS (or XML) and Maple, Mathematica and Matlab seem skewed by the fact that Maple can show up in a number of ways unrelated to computer algebra systems. http://www.google.com/trends?q=CSS%2CXML%2CMaple%2CMathematica% 2CMatlab&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all Finally, it is nice to note that as a search topic CSS is now just beating out Britney Spears and Madonna. http://www.google.com/trends?q=CSS%2CBritney%20Spears% 2CMadonna&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all This might provide a clue as to what may also be going on, if the vertical scales on the diagrams were there. http://www.google.com/trends?q=CSS+XML&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all After all, CSS is collecting some traffic for the Center for Sustainable Systems (University of Michigan here in Ann Arbor, like Google's just announced new office), Cornell Composting Science, various Community and Social Services, etc. For that matter Madonna covers a number of instances too. I conclude that we are not any more informed by the figures from Google Trends than we were when we knew that CSS is much wider known and deployed than MathML, which we all have from the start. CSS is supposed to address a much wider scope of issues. That last point could suggest that specific areas of application may sometimes require special treatment of certain issues that cannot be adopted for as universal measures. That is, I think, what we have in the case of math. In any case, a MathML revision needs to take careful note of what's now doable with CSS, and perhaps CSS can take note of any remaining special needs of math's 'one-and-a-half- and two-dimensional text' with font choices carrying heavy semantic loads. Patrick
Received on Saturday, 15 July 2006 19:45:24 UTC