From: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:40:28 +0200

Message-ID: <CABqxo802nfQ25W7c9LTh=oS_oEgCBsARQpWzC3Ngf3gw1sbD+g@mail.gmail.com>

To: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>

Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:40:28 +0200

Message-ID: <CABqxo802nfQ25W7c9LTh=oS_oEgCBsARQpWzC3Ngf3gw1sbD+g@mail.gmail.com>

To: "www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>

Hi Peter and Andrew, Thanks for those interesting statements. I'm not sure how they relate to what I wrote (please let me know if I missed something) but I appreciate having the opportunity to read them. Regards, Peter. On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Andrew Robbins <andjrob@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear MathML Subscribers, > > I must admit that I have not read every word of both posts, but I already > know what this is about, because I have already encountered similar issues, > with both Presentation and Content. I'm not too concerned with > Presentation, because MathJax does an excellent job at that. What I am > concerned with is Content (i.e. Semantics), and to quote the original > article: > > "Content MathML is just not relevant." -- Peter Krautzberger > > I have been writing a set of tools for trans-language compilation for > about 5 years now, (freely available at > https://github.com/andydude/droxtools), and the only system I've found > that is is open, non-commercial, and easily extensible for representing > arbitrary concepts from every programming language ever invented, is > Content MathML. This is the opposite of "not relevant", and Paul Topping > failed to address this. > > In my humble opinion, the reason why MathML has failed isn't because of > Content MathML, it's because of Presentation MathML, and it's not because > it isn't accurate, or because it doesn't look good, it's because people > prefer TeX over angle brackets. MathJax provides people the ability to show > the same beautiful math expressions on web pages, that Presentation MathML > promised but with many fewer keystrokes. > > I don't care about angle brackets. I don't care about superscripts. The > only thing that interests me with regards to Content MathML, is the fact > that it is, at a fundamental level, a LISP where symbols are selected from > URI/RDF/XML/MathML namespaces. Granted, OpenMath/MathML namespaces are > naturally defined to be equivalent, but to apply to XML/QNames as well, > then you need a QName to URI mapping. I've seen two of these, the > "{NS}NAME" method (think Java/Ruby/Python) and the "NS::NAME" method (think > JavaScript/E4X), the first one fails to produce a valid URI, but the second > method does produce a valid URI, so that's what I've been using in my > tools. The point is that URIs are already a carefully controlled resource, > and so they are much more open than LISP's traditional filesystem based > package system, or any other system I've seen. > > Just in the interest of full disclosure, there are closed, commercial > systems out there that do trans-language compilation, like the kind I'm > currently developing. https://www.semanticdesigns.com/ is an example of a > corporation involved in such a business. But I whole-heartedly believe that > the future of open-source software depends on having such tools available > as open source tools. This is starting to sound like a rant, so I will stop > it here. > > Actually, I changed my mind. I still have to have a Content vs. > Presentation debate. As I said earlier, I agree that Presentation MathML > has failed, but that's because it's a failed viewpoint. Math isn't symbols, > it's semantics. From the beginning, MathML should have been about Content, > not Presentation. I think if we had focused on Content all along, then we > probably wouldn't be having this conversation now. > > Regards, > Andrew Robbins > > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Peter Murray-Rust <pm286@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> I write as a chemist who has tried to do the same thing with Chemistry >> (CML, Chemical Markup Language). I have been inspired by what I see as the >> success of MathML and do not regard it as a failure. I am particularly >> interested in Content MathML as computable maths. >> >> The reality seems to be that it takes a generation for many of these >> ideas to be implemented. in 1998 SVG seemed to be the obvious way of doing >> graphics, but after 5 years it looked close to death. After 15 years it's >> become universal. >> >> CML is used by a small number of enthusiasts. The chemical software >> manufacturers don't care because they only care about the pharma industry >> and instruments. So we strugle on with a number of ad hoc broken >> representations of chemistry, which are still primarily graphical. There is >> almost no chemistry for blind people. >> >> The real problem is semantics. At the moment the world doesn't care. They >> will have to in the future. IoT demands semantics. You cannot compute >> pictures. Binding semantics to maths and chemistry is hard but it will have >> to come. I'd guess that people will need semantic math in 5 years and >> chemistry in 15. >> >> If you let the world be driven by browser manufacturers and publishers >> you will get a sighted-human vision of maths and science. The IoT won't >> need browsers. >> >> It WILL need semantic maths. >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Peter Krautzberger of MathJax fame, recently posted this on his own blog: >>> >>> MathML is a failed web standard >>> https://www.peterkrautzberger.org/0186/ >>> >>> Obviously, he presents some challenges to the MathML standard and its >>> community. I felt that I had to respond: >>> >>> Response to Peter Krautzberger's "MathML is a failed web standard" >>> http://bit.ly/1ZLfCF8 >>> >>> I hope this exchange prompts some serious dialog. >>> >>> Paul Topping >>> >>> Design Science, Inc. >>> "How Science Communicates" >>> Makers of MathType, MathFlow, MathPlayer, Equation Editor >>> http://www.dessci.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Peter Murray-Rust >> Reader in Molecular Informatics >> Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry >> University of Cambridge >> CB2 1EW, UK >> +44-1223-763069 >> > >Received on Friday, 8 April 2016 07:40:59 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Friday, 8 April 2016 07:40:59 UTC
*