RE: Using content-MathML for computation and analysis in Science and Engineering

Math Working Group, Hello.  I would like to indicate some temporal approaches to these topics.  Approaches include: SMIL3 (http://www.w3.org/TR/SMIL3/), SMIL timesheets (http://www.w3.org/TR/timesheets/), timesheets.js (http://wam.inrialpes.fr/timesheets/), and a University of Arizona project, TAU (http://www.cs.arizona.edu/projects/tau/).   Kind regards, Adam Sobieski  > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:22:39 +0000
> From: davidc@nag.co.uk
> To: www-math@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Using content-MathML for computation and analysis in Science  and Engineering
> 
> On 19/03/2012 08:31, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> > I have now made progress on my MathCML engine (combined mathematics and
> > chemistry). I have been much encouraged by this list and hope I may
> > continue to ask questions - any progress I make is updated at
> > https://www.bitbucket.org/petermr/mathml.
> >
> > One of my uses is to chain simple statements sequentially as in a
> > computer program, such as
> >
> > x=1
> > y=2
> > r=x+y
> > x=9
> >
> > and turn it into:
> >
> > <math> // I shall omit namespaces for brevity
> > <apply><eq/><ci>x</ci><cn>1</cn></apply>
> > <apply><eq/><ci>y</ci><cn>2</cn></apply>
> > <apply><eq/><ci>r</ci><apply><plus/><ci>x</ci><ci>y</ci></apply></apply>
> > <apply><eq/><ci>x</ci><cn>9</cn></apply>
> > </math>
> >
> > Can I check that this is (a) valid MathML and (b)
> > stylistically/semantically acceptable MathML?
> 
> (a) Looks valid to me,
> on (b) a couple of mild suggestions that may reduce confusion if that 
> were to escape into the wild out of a controlled world where you can 
> assert the desired implementation.
> 
> 1)
> MathML allows multiple top level terms but doesn't assign any meaning to 
> that, so it might be easier to give meaning (and future flexibility) if 
> you had a top level container, could be as simple as
> <math><list>....</list></math>
> or you could have a custom container
> <math><apply><csymbol>cmmlist</csymbol>....</apply></math>
> or you could keep it as it is.
> 
> 2) I think most systems will have a default interpretation of <eq/> as 
> an equality test rather than an imperative assignment, and so interpret 
> the above as an insoluble set of equations. Probably I'd use something 
> like <csymbol>define</csymbol> rather than <eq/>.
> 
> 
> >
> > My understanding of the discussion so far is that the "x" in line 1 may
> > or may not be the "same as" the "x" in line 3; that MathML is silent on
> > this. If so it is legitimate for me to assume it is. It is also
> > legitimate for me to assume it carries the value 1 to line 3 and that
> > "r" could be evaluated as 3. (It is aso legitimate for others to assert
> > that they don't accept these semantics). There is also no universal
> > agreed terminology that I can use to enforce my interpretation. That I
> > have to use a content dictionary (cd) to make that assertion and that
> > (probably) I have to do this in human language
> 
> yes, I think I agree with that.
> 
> >
> > If this is agreed then I shall continue on this basis. What are the
> > potential dangers other than other MATHML users misunderstanding what I
> > am doing?
> 
> none really. Well all the usual ones such as if your interpretation of
> the standard symbols is sufficiently far from someone else's it makes it 
> a bit harder to share expressions with that other system, but perhaps 
> that doesn't really make sense in this context..
> >
> > More generally my engine will wish to manage objects other than pure
> > maths objects (e.g. molecules). Can I assume that as long as I simply
> > expose the symbols and not the detailed structure MathML will not care.
> > For example:
> >
> >
> > <apply>
> >      <sum/>
> >      <bvar>
> >           <ci> bond </ci>
> >      </bvar>
> >      <condition>
> >           <apply>
> >                <in/>
> >                <ci> bond </ci>
> >                <ci type="set"> bondSet </ci>
> >           </apply>
> >      </condition>
> >      <apply>
> >           <ci type="fn"> bondLength </ci>
> >           <ci> bond </ci>
> >      </apply>
> > </apply>
> 
> >
> > will apply the function "bondLength" to a set "bondSet" (which happens
> > to be a set of bonds)
> 
> For symbols with defined semantics as opposed to free variables in the 
> particular expression it's better to use csymbol rather than ci so
> <csymbol>bondLength</csymbol>
> >
> > If so, are they stylistic and semantic conventions I should be aware of?
> >
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England
> and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
> Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.
> 
> This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
> powered by MessageLabs. 
> ________________________________________________________________________
>