Minutes: MathML intent meeting 12 August, 2021

 Attendees:

   - Bert Bos
   - Sam Dooley
   - David Farmer
   - Deyan Ginev
   - Patrick Ion
   - Paul Libbrecht
   - Louis Maher
   - Bruce Miller
   - Murray Sargent
   - Moritz Schubotz
   - Cary Supalo
   - Neil Soiffer
   - David Carlisle
   - Stephen Watt

Regrets:

   - Laurence Zaysser

Announcements/updates

Resolution: The group wishes to have a new working draft of mathml-core
published to replace certain missing sections.
Gap Analysis Doc

The Gap Analysis document is at Gap Document
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pzsf2dqTkbYXFmoKCLzvtrNERNmtF2MHX1WtugB3PfA/edit#>

dg: Discussed schema.org. He could not get the search engines to work.

MOS: schema.org is picked up by initiatives in Europe to make things
machine readable. They are looking for RDFA. profit based search engines
may not be interested in this. RDFA is an alternative to microdata.

NS: What is important about search for MathML?

BM: Not many things work out of the box for our goals.

NS: When we talk to another group with this document, we should highlight
those sections we want the other group to pay attention to.

NS: Are there any working groups working on search?

BB: No. Some CGs might be interested in search.

SW: Knows people at google who would be interested in working on search.

SW: When we talk to another group, our questions have to be focused so that
the other group can understand what we want.

NS: Is using "RDFA solving the accessibility problem?

DG: Schema.org has an issues page. We should open an issue there and ask
for feedback.

DG: The intent issue is different than the search issue. We have not
discussed what we want MathML to do with search.

NS: Are search and accessibility two different things?

DG: We need to narrow down the search questions before we can answer this.

MOS: We should talk about the structure of the Gap document. We now have
the primary goal and secondary goals. The primary goal should be
accessibility. The secondary goals are things like search and mathematical
computation.

MOS: Wants to separate our problems we are trying to solve versus the
technology we are using to solve them.

MOS: Wants a clearer discussion of the problems we are trying to solve at
the beginning of the document. The technology discussion should come later.

NS: Wants to have something for all readers in the document without making
the document too big. We should refer to other documents for more detailed
discussions of the solutions.

NS: suggests using the same case to discuss our various issues. He suggests
using the case of the various meanings of (a,b) to do this.

DG: There is a lot of subtlety in these issues and the group may disagree
with one another on these issues.

SW: When speaking about a point (a,b) people almost never mention the comma.

NS: How do you speak the inverse sin function. It can be inverse sin, sin
inverse, or arc sin. There is no right way to say it. We should be wary of
claiming "this is the correct way to speak this piece of MathML"

DG: Wants to put non accessibility items later in the paper. Items like
search and computation.

SW: We should say that the intent attribute is not sufficient for
computation. If you have content MathML, would you be doubling the work to
bring in intent?

BM: If we have presentation MathML and content MathML in parallel, we can
speak the result in many ways. The user could decide how the user wanted
things to be read.

When you only have presentation MathML, what is the minimum amount of
intent you need to speak the expression?

BM: An ARIA solution would give you only one way to speak expressions.
Other approaches would be more flexible.

SD: We have two problems for presentation MathML: what is the minimum
amount of intent language we need to speak the expression, and how does the
user want to receive the semantic information.

SW: We want to be able to read something without knowing what it is. (a,b)
is that a point or a complex number?

SD: People could choose to read syntactically or semantically.

*ACTION ITEM:* SD: will draft this discussion.

MOS: Wants to use as much of the MathML version3 intent capability for the
new MathML version 4 capability. This discussion might go in the parallel
section.

NS: We have discussed the math being international and whether adding
language-specific words is a bad idea. People had different opinions but I
think the majority feels that the document is written in a language.The
math does not have to be understood in all languages.

NS: Suggests that people who have strong feelings on a topic should be the
ones writing on that topic.

BM: Both likes and hates parallel markup.

SD: wants to separate the discussion of the structure of parallel MathML
from the discussion of the vocabulary used in parallel MathML.

*ACTION ITEM:* MOS, SD, and DG should work together to describe parallel
MathML.

*ACTION ITEM:* NS: would like someone to describe what search should look
like.

DC: The TeX users' group conference had a great deal on Braille. Will send
some links to the mailing list once the talks are ready to be viewed
individually.

NS: (updated) I'm away on August 26, 2021 and we will not meet on that
date. I will be here next week on August 19, 2021.