Re: Minutes: MathML intent meetings, 9 Dec, 2021

Neil, please accept and convey my regrets for this meeting.  My Covid
booster session went long!

Stephen

On Tue., Dec. 14, 2021, 5:00 p.m. Neil Soiffer, <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:

> Attendees:
>
>    - David Carlisle
>    - Sam Dooley
>    - David Farmer
>    - Deyan Ginev
>    - Patrick Ion
>    - Louis Maher
>    - Bruce Miller
>    - Murray Sargent
>    - Neil Soiffer
>    - Moritz Schubotz
>    - Bert Bos
>    - Paul Libbrecht
>
> Regrets:
>
>    - Cary Supalo
>    - Stephen Watt
>
> Announcements/updates
>
> We will meet on December 16. We will take off two weeks for the holidays
> and resume on Jan 6.
>
> NS: would like us to have a plan for intent by the end of the Dec 16
> meeting so he can do some prototyping over the holidays. Hopefully, that is
> realistic.
> Background material
>
> Bruce's material:
> https://mathml-refresh.github.io/discussion-papers/semantics-mini
>
> Sam's Proposal:
> https://samdooley.github.io/mathml-docs/intent2cmml/intent.html
>
> Sam's Demo: https://samdooley.github.io/mathml-docs/intent2cmml/demo.html
>
> Deyan's proposal: https://prodg.org/talks/encyclopedic-intent
>
> Deyan's demo page :https://dginev.github.io/tiny-mathml-a11y-demo/
> David C will present his proposal that resolves differences in some of the
> previous proposals.
>
> DC: Of the three people who made intent recommendations, Sam's was the
> most complicated.
>
> DC: Was not in favor of using wild cards. When you are referring to a
> grandchild, he discourages the use of slashes. He believes you should use
> variable names.
>
> DC: If you have something without intent, then your spec must say what
> your defaults are.
>
> DG: How are the defaults to be applied?
>
> BM: Deciding to use a specific language for a default is out of scope.
>
> PL: Found the binomial example to be useful in demonstrating the intent
> process.
>
> NS: Suppose people used mtable instead of mfrac for the binomial case?
>
> NS: Showed his pattern matching example. Pattern matching may be
> difficult. The fraction and vector cases were quite different.
>
> DC: You do not have to have default intent for everything.
>
> DF: Would it be possible to indicate the preferred markup for common
> objects? Sometimes there is more than one way to speak certain math
> expressions. Is it possible to specify a preferred way to write math?
>
> SD: We should not be saying that this is the preferred MathML way to
> specify things.
> You could have a library that generates presentation markup for certain
> operators. You could have default intent generated for this case.
>
> DF: I will write software which generates markup, so I would prefer to be
> told what kind of presentation MathML people want. If I have to guess, then
> people down the pipeline are stuck using my choice.
>
> DG: It is not clear that people will follow preferred presentation MathML
> suggestions.
>
> MOS: We should have default intent for standard presentation cases.
>
> MOS: Wants to develop tools and get input from users to see what works for
> generating speech. He wants to have voice output to check our intent
> efforts.
>
> NS: There are many audiences for the voice output. There will be many
> opinions of how to speak math expressions.
>
> MOS: To get a better understanding of the problems, we need voice output
> cases.
>
> DG: For his level one cases; DG will generate presentation and intent
> MathML and use this to test his default rules. There are 240 cases in DG's
> level one.
>
> DF: I will take DG's examples as the preferred markup, and start coding
> when that is available.
>
> MUS: There is an effort in LaTeX to specify intent. Simplicity plays a
> major role. I am interested in two additional formats: Unicode Math and
> LaTeX; then deducing intent from standard forms of these, or a pMathML
> version.
>
> NS: thinks mrows can be spoken as is, without rearranging their order.
>
> NS: We are not sure if we are allowing positional versus name references.
> We will talk about this next week.
>
> NS: If someone has something to present next week, please let NS know;
> otherwise, we will continue today's discussion next week.
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> <#m_-7546301334210667230_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>