Re: gap analysis doc -- eliminate or drastically cut back last section

The only point I might add is that notational ambiguity seems to be one of the primary issues we address, which is not only an accessibility issue. Those who have worked on math search have long discussed this point. For instance, this article makes a nice read:
Altamimi, M. E., & Youssef, A. (2007, August). A more canonical form of content MathML to facilitate math search<https://www2.seas.gwu.edu/~ayoussef/papers/CanonicalMathML-Extreme07.pdf>. In Proc. Extreme Markup Languages.

Indeed, the authors make many of the same points as we do about the problem of notational ambiguity. But perhaps all we need to do (if we decide the scrap the last section) is to simply make the point that addressing the issue of notational ambiguity will not only improve the accessibility of MathML but will also provide for improving math search.

--Steve




Steve Noble
Instructional Designer, Accessibility
Psychometrics & Testing Services

Pearson

502 969 3088
steve.noble@pearson.com<mailto:steve.noble@pearson.com>

[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/xFjftXlwMzpdFeTtDgc4_IwyMYm8ThtQHIsgElkS8fyiCO2M7ZM0WaO7r2uy-bmKAe5S2sIcg7d-mwbD4ArkJhyafHke-SgJ2ui8DoGoBhZw4YIyWeK3LUozNMwBff4JR2tdu8nZ2fvoNvkkA06KNw9-s3P9UvYsHSTphHss6X0=s0-d-e1-ft#http://accessibility4school.pearson.com/access/4c49fe02-e204-46b4-b6f0-82f5a3f159cb/pearson-accessibility.jpg]


________________________________
From: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 1:18 AM
To: www-math@w3.org <www-math@w3.org>
Subject: gap analysis doc -- eliminate or drastically cut back last section

In a few days, I will need to tell people interested in our TPAC session about the link and so anything other than fixing typos/grammatical errors needs to come to an end.

In reading thru the doc, the final section "Other target applications of MathML<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fmathml-docs%2Fgap-analysis%2F%23other-target-applications-of-mathml&data=04%7C01%7Csteve.noble%40pearson.com%7C37f97d4fd47244b21da008d98c76cdf1%7C8cc434d797d047d3b5c514fe0e33e34b%7C0%7C0%7C637695264826819709%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=MzUmW1NlcfnvXgTEON%2BBSvJOZQswO7DjUTTL8QQTtOk%3D&reserved=0>" really seems out of place. I think we need to say something about structured data/schema.org<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csteve.noble%40pearson.com%7C37f97d4fd47244b21da008d98c76cdf1%7C8cc434d797d047d3b5c514fe0e33e34b%7C0%7C0%7C637695264826829706%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=pyc1jof3FYSzGwxhEW0h1Gvgd3ITDUdpeetzXV18FtY%3D&reserved=0>, but while the other topics in that section are important, they have almost nothing to do with how to make expressions speak appropriately, which is what the rest of the document focuses on.

I don't want to unilaterally drop the items in that section, so if you feel they are relevant to the rest of the document, please state your reasons for keeping them. Because time is critically short, this will be a one day discussion -- Monday. If you have something to say about those sections pro or con, say it now.

FYI: I've submitted some PRs that hopefully will get acted on Monday morning that unify some of the earlier sections. Parallel markup still needs the other examples and the text needs to get unified with the rest of the document. I'm not the best person to do this, but if no one else steps up to edit that section, you'll get stuck with what I come up with...

   Neil