Re: Finished Editing The April 14 Minutes

On 14/04/2022 21:46, Louis Maher wrote:

I have finished editing the April 14, 2022, intent meeting minutes.

Sorry I couldn't be there this week.

Just some comments on one section of the notes

NS: We will not make a formal commitment to do this until DC can come back next week.

I think it's important that the xml syntax for each entry is explicit in the main entry for the element.

You need to know that set takes content, but  plus is empty, and that tendso has a type attribute

DG: likes the compact form using descriptive paragraphs instead of tables.

there are no  tables re-written as  paragraphs in Sam's draft? the tables are removed/moved, leaving the existing text.

MOS: Pragmatic MathML is not used often and perhaps it should be deprecated.

"pragmatic" MathML isn't a defined term, but I assume you mean Content MathML that is not valid Strict Content?

Actually apart from technical descriptions of mapping to OpenMath, I am not aware of any system that supports Content MathML that only supports the Strict subset.

I did a quick search this morning for content mathml, none of which just supported Strict Content. I do not see any justification to deprecate the non strict part of Content MathML. Certainly that isn't an option in this WG which has a charter explicitly to make no changes to Content MathML (although we can change the specification layout of course)

I'll put a list at the end.

DG: symbolic python is using something called content MathML two.  Content MathML may not be very inviting and has not been accepted.

I tried to find this, but was not sure what you mean here, isn't this simply Content MathML, referencing MathML2?


Chapter 4 has always been a been a bit unwieldy: listing each element twice, first ordering by syntactic structure, (4.3 in the current draft) then again by mathematical area (4.4 in the current draft).

We tried to avoid some of the duplication in MathML3, with mixed success.

At my fork I reduce it a bit more, putting the syntax tables in 4.3 with just a reference to them in the entries in 4.4.

But I am actually favouring a more radical re-organisation, removing 4.4 altogether and moving the element descriptions in to 4.3.

this would allow eg the arithmetic operators to be treated like the trig functions and all listed together, but would need to be re-ordered by syntax, so list all the binary infix, then all the unary operators etc so, as for sin/cos/tan, all the elements in a given section share the same syntax so can share the same description, and just have a sample example of one or two of them.


# python libraries

# Java Libraries

# Julia Libraries

# TeX systems (Context)

# other XML Vocabularies

## CellML

# Books


The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: 30 St. Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LE, United Kingdom. Please see our Privacy Notice <> for information on how we process personal data and for details of how to stop or limit communications from us.

This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and malware by Microsoft Exchange Online (EOP)

Received on Friday, 15 April 2022 12:06:19 UTC