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(a)dessci.com>om>:
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(a)brightbyte.de>de>; Moritz Schubotz <schubotz@tu-
berlin.de>; www-math(a)w3.org; Peter Krautzberger
<peter.krautzberger(a)mathjax.org>
Cc: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>; wikidata-tech
<wikidata-tech(a)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(a)tu-berlin.de>de>; www-math(a)w3.org; Peter
> Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger(a)mathjax.org>
> Cc: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>rg>;
wikidata-tech
> <wikidata-tech(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech