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

In the intro, it already says " It is likely that additional information
that aids accessibility can also be used to improve search of mathematical
expressions, but the focus of this document is on enhancing accessibility."

Seems like if I add the other topics to that sentence, then the points you
make will be included and there is no need for other sections. Agreed?


On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:10 AM Paul Libbrecht <> wrote:

> That was the sense of the first sentence I had added to this section
> (which ended up last): You improve a lot other things if you remove a bit
> of ambiguity: search, transfer to other places, computability,
> translations, automatic parsing…
> I agree it’s enough to have one such sentence.
> Paul
> On 11 Oct 2021, at 18:03, Noble, Stephen wrote:
> > 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. 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.

Received on Monday, 11 October 2021 18:15:19 UTC