Send Wikidata-tech mailing list submissions to
wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikidata-tech-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikidata-tech-owner@lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikidata-tech digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: MathML is dead, long live MathML (Thomas Douillard)
2. Re: MathML is dead, long live MathML (Peter Krautzberger)
3. Re: MathML is dead, long live MathML (Roger Martin)
4. Fwd: [Wikidata] upcoming change in RDF format data
(Daniel Kinzler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 14:11:13 +0200
From: Thomas Douillard <thomas.douillard@gmail.com>
To: Wikidata technical discussion <wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-tech] MathML is dead, long live MathML
Message-ID:
<CAHYhspZx7D-jfoYRPMafah+vmvaDgS0EGYLrjwQBsB9_LbuHLg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi, One concrete usecase is the formula datatype for properties on
Wikidata. We are discussing the semantics issues here : what means the
operators of the formula, what means the variables ? An immediate way, in
Wikidata, is to
In the item for a geometric figure, for example a square, how to model that
a square can be defined in the euclidian space by the geometric coordinates
of points, we could create the item for a point class in Wikidata, give a
name of a point (pretty much usual mathematical or programming work) and to
link that variable name to an item for the semantics/corresponding type.
Same for the operators.
Last, in the question you raised on "modelling maths versus modeling domain
model formula" I'd say that in Wikidata the scope is basically unlimited,
contrary to a regular scientific publication who takes place in a context
that may be more or less non formally explicited, we can fill the gap
beetween more formal aspects of logical or inference rules used by the
scientist, the mathematical framework (euclidian space, non euclidian
space, logical framework, axioms ... we pretty much have items for all of
this and can create new one if that's structurally needed for a usecase)
and the formula. Time is less of an issue because the work is reusable and
cumulative, there is no deadline. There is only a need to leave the door
open to do that work for someone to be able to do it at his/her convenance.
Of course it's a lot of work, but there is no pressure. I'm not sure how
MathML relates to this however.
2016-04-08 0:51 GMT+02:00 Paul Topping <pault@dessci.com>:
> Peter just posted a follow up response, largely commenting on my response:
> https://www.peterkrautzberger.org/0187/.
>
> First, I suspect the reason his post doesn't get as much discussion as
> he'd like is because his blog doesn't accept comments. I can understand why
> he doesn't enable comments on his personal blog but why not post it
> somewhere that DOES accept comments?
>
> He says that most of the discussion has been private. That is not the way
> to change a standard or replace it by a new one. By all means have your
> private conversations but don't expect others to agree with any conclusions
> reached in them. The result of good ideas expressed in private conversation
> should be to introduce them into public conversation. Instead, his post
> treated MathML's failure as a fait accompli. Perhaps it is but only in the
> narrow scope of it being ignored by browser makers.
>
> He feels that many things I said in my reply were more about expressing my
> own ideas. I'll cop to that. I felt that was needed to indicate that there
> are other points of view and other ideas. His solutions may not be the
> right ones. Let's open up the discussion.
>
> Can we identify specific topics worthy of addressing and discuss them? I
> tried to hint at some possible directions in my reply, which is why it
> veered into some of my own ideas. I would love for this to be a
> constructive discussion. Instead of discussing whether MathML is a failed
> standard, I would like to see real, open discussion on solutions to various
> problems. Any takers?
>
> Paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Topping [mailto:pault@dessci.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 2:02 PM
> > To: Daniel Kinzler <daniel@brightbyte.de>; Moritz Schubotz <schubotz@tu-
> > berlin.de>; www-math@w3.org; Peter Krautzberger
> > <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
> > Cc: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org>; wikidata-tech
> > <wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Subject: RE: MathML is dead, long live MathML
> >
> > I have no problem with that but are some of these lists members-only? I
> was
> > told when I replied that my message would be reviewed by the moderator as
> > I wasn't a member. Perhaps that was the W3C list.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daniel Kinzler [mailto:daniel@brightbyte.de]
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:06 AM
> > > To: Moritz Schubotz <schubotz@tu-berlin.de>; www-math@w3.org; Peter
> > > Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
> > > Cc: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org>;
> wikidata-tech
> > > <wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Subject: Re: MathML is dead, long live MathML
> > >
> > > Am 07.04.2016 um 20:00 schrieb Moritz Schubotz:
> > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > >
> > > > Ok. Let's discuss!
> > >
> > > Great! But let's keep the discussion in one place. I made a mess by
> > > cross-posting this to two lists, now it's three, it seems. Can we
> agree on
> > > <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> as the venue of discussion? At least
> for
> > the
> > > discussion of MathML in the context of Wikimedia, that would be the
> best
> > > place,
> > > I think.
> > >
> > > -- daniel
> > >
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-tech mailing list
> Wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-tech/attachments/20160408/aa26eef9/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:32:18 +0200
From: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
To: Daniel Kinzler <daniel@brightbyte.de>
Cc: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org>,
"www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, Moritz Schubotz
<schubotz@tu-berlin.de>, wikidata-tech
<wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-tech] MathML is dead, long live MathML
Message-ID:
<CABqxo81+9wPsoBAR7KhdhdM2=OqtnKqR+bEgdyv0yj4boNeP1A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Daniel,
Could you let me know once you've decided on a venue for discussion? I'd be
happy to join in.
Thanks in advance,
Peter.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Daniel Kinzler <daniel@brightbyte.de> wrote:
> Am 07.04.2016 um 20:00 schrieb Moritz Schubotz:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > Ok. Let's discuss!
>
> Great! But let's keep the discussion in one place. I made a mess by
> cross-posting this to two lists, now it's three, it seems. Can we agree on
> <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org> as the venue of discussion? At least for
> the
> discussion of MathML in the context of Wikimedia, that would be the best
> place,
> I think.
>
> -- daniel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-tech/attachments/20160408/5ca55526/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:48:22 +0000 (UTC)
From: Roger Martin <mathmldashx@yahoo.com>
To: Daniel Kinzler <daniel@brightbyte.de>, Paul Topping
<pault@dessci.com>, Moritz Schubotz <schubotz@tu-berlin.de>,
"www-math@w3.org" <www-math@w3.org>, Peter Krautzberger
<peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>
Cc: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org>,
wikidata-tech <wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-tech] MathML is dead, long live MathML
Message-ID:
<1267878798.1636311.1460119702674.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello, how many of us have github accounts?
On Friday, April 8, 2016 6:10 AM, Daniel Kinzler <daniel@brightbyte.de> wrote:
Am 07.04.2016 um 23:01 schrieb Paul Topping:
> I have no problem with that but are some of these lists members-only? I was
> told when I replied that my message would be reviewed by the moderator as I
> wasn't a member. Perhaps that was the W3C list.
Oh... both the Wikimedia lists are members only, I'm afraid. The W3C list
requires a 1-click agreement to their terms. That's easier, but less likely to
involve Wikimedia people.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-tech/attachments/20160408/6a04ee93/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 19:34:16 +0200
From: Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de>
To: Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@googlemail.com>, Markus Kroetzsch
<Markus.Kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de>, "christopher.johnson@wikimedia.de"
<christopher.johnson@wikimedia.de>
Cc: wikidata-tech <wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikidata-tech] Fwd: [Wikidata] upcoming change in RDF format
data
Message-ID: <5707EB98.6030000@wikimedia.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Just a quick heads up that this is expected to go live next week. Since nobody
responded to the original announcement, we don't expect much trouble.
But if you are processing WKT literals from Wikibase RDF output, you need to
check the version number, and parse the literals accordingly.
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [Wikidata] upcoming change in RDF format data
Datum: Sun, 3 Apr 2016 11:02:04 +0300
Von: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@wikimedia.org>
Antwort an: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. <wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
Organisation: Wikimedia Foundation
An: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. <wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi!
We are committing a patch that implements a change in RDF format output,
specifically how we output coordinates as WKT points.
If you do not use RDF format exports and specifically WKT coordinate
literals there, this change has no effect for you.
When we first implemented it, we chose to make it "Point(latitude
longitude)". Unfortunately, turns out the standard way in WKT is
Point(longitude latitude) and that's how most of the tools that
implement WKT format understand it. In general, geo-data formats are
split on this question, see http://www.macwright.org/lonlat/. But WKT is
pretty universally in lon-lat camp, so we have to follow the established
practice.
As such, we are changing the WKT representation and we are bumping the
format version (reported as schema:softwareVersion on RDF dumps/exports)
from 0.0.1 to 0.0.2 so that the tools could adjust properly.
See more details in: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T130049
Thanks,
--
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-tech mailing list
Wikidata-tech@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
------------------------------
End of Wikidata-tech Digest, Vol 36, Issue 7
********************************************