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 <[email protected]>: > 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:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 2:02 PM > > To: Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]>; Moritz Schubotz <schubotz@tu- > > berlin.de>; [email protected]; Peter Krautzberger > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: Wikimedia developers <[email protected]>; wikidata-tech > > <[email protected]> > > 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:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:06 AM > > > To: Moritz Schubotz <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Peter > > > Krautzberger <[email protected]> > > > Cc: Wikimedia developers <[email protected]>; > wikidata-tech > > > <[email protected]> > > > 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 > > > <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
