Science > Physics > Canonical Science Today, and notation/syntaxes for CanonMath
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Juan R." |
| Date: |
10 Feb 2006 03:15:27 AM |
| Object: |
Canonical Science Today, and notation/syntaxes for CanonMath |
Introduction
I am developing the CanonML language (version 1.0) as a way to
generate, store, and publish canonical science documents on the
Internet. This language will be the basis for the next version 2.0 of
the website of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE). The current
preliminary version -in proof stage- has been developed on XHTML
1.1 + MathML 2.0 language without semantics (e.g. there exists not use
of <h1> or <p>). We wait see the CanonML language like an
advanced proposal for the generation of next generation of academic
electronic datuments.
The CanonML language and related software we will develop (XSLTs, etc.)
will be open source; anyone can use, personalize, and generalize it. We
wait some technical advice and help in those issues. We wait the WG
will provide some technical advice in the development of the CanonMath
input syntax for MathML.
XHTML (including the future XHTML 2.0) and MathML or specific languages
as Docubook do not fit all our requirements -for example, we need
specific scientific requirements for <chemistry> are not fulfilled
even by the specialized CML-, therein the need for the CanonML
language.
Currently, <CanonML> is splinted into three modules: <CanonText>,
<CanonGraph>, and <CanonMath>. CanonText is ready, but the
development of CanonGraph has been stopped until a better browsers'
support of vectorial graphics. Our current emphasis is on CanonMath.
The main aims of CanonML language are: simplicity, completeness, and
semantic-oriented. For instance, CanonText achieve the semantic level
of XHTML 2.0 for general text but being more accessible and optimised
than later. The optimisation is largely an outcome of the application
of basic generic ideas from canonical science ontology. This relative
success reinforces our initial supposition on the power of canonical
science.
Another syntaxes
After of a relatively intense research of the present and future
capabilities of TeX/LaTeX, IteX, ASCIIMath, and the two MathML
syntaxes, I have discarded them as basic input syntaxes for the math
module of the CanonML language. Notations for chemistry also are
partially discussed: The mhchem chemical package and ConTexT approaches
are not suitable input syntaxes for chemical formulae.
The output of the Hermes project used in Living Reviews on Relativity
is presented as an example of very unpleasant code from the point of
view of logical design, optimised code, and semantic clean web goals.
Hermes like output is highly undesirable for the future generation of
web datuments.
For more information see canonical science today entry:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/02/choosing-notationsyntax-for-canonmath.html.
Poll on notation
I am doing a poll for choosing the final notation of CanonMath for
introducing mathematical formulas in XML documents. Comments,
criticism, suggestions, and varied opinions are welcomed.
Source:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/02/choosing-notationsyntax-for-canonmath.html
--
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Science Today, and notation/syntaxes for CanonMath |
10 Feb 2006 07:05:49 PM |
|
|
Juan R. wrote:
Introduction
I am developing the CanonML language (version 1.0) as a way to
generate, store, and publish canonical science documents on the
Internet. This language will be the basis for the next version 2.0 of
the website of the Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE). The current
preliminary version -in proof stage- has been developed on XHTML
1.1 + MathML 2.0 language without semantics (e.g. there exists not use
of <h1> or <p>). We wait see the CanonML language like an
advanced proposal for the generation of next generation of academic
electronic datuments.
The CanonML language and related software we will develop (XSLTs, etc.)
will be open source; anyone can use, personalize, and generalize it. We
wait some technical advice and help in those issues. We wait the WG
will provide some technical advice in the development of the CanonMath
input syntax for MathML.
XHTML (including the future XHTML 2.0) and MathML or specific languages
as Docubook do not fit all our requirements -for example, we need
specific scientific requirements for <chemistry> are not fulfilled
even by the specialized CML-, therein the need for the CanonML
language.
Currently, <CanonML> is splinted into three modules: <CanonText>,
<CanonGraph>, and <CanonMath>. CanonText is ready, but the
development of CanonGraph has been stopped until a better browsers'
support of vectorial graphics. Our current emphasis is on CanonMath.
The main aims of CanonML language are: simplicity, completeness, and
semantic-oriented. For instance, CanonText achieve the semantic level
of XHTML 2.0 for general text but being more accessible and optimised
than later. The optimisation is largely an outcome of the application
of basic generic ideas from canonical science ontology. This relative
success reinforces our initial supposition on the power of canonical
science.
Another syntaxes
After of a relatively intense research of the present and future
capabilities of TeX/LaTeX, IteX, ASCIIMath, and the two MathML
syntaxes, I have discarded them as basic input syntaxes for the math
module of the CanonML language. Notations for chemistry also are
partially discussed: The mhchem chemical package and ConTexT approaches
are not suitable input syntaxes for chemical formulae.
The output of the Hermes project used in Living Reviews on Relativity
is presented as an example of very unpleasant code from the point of
view of logical design, optimised code, and semantic clean web goals.
Hermes like output is highly undesirable for the future generation of
web datuments.
For more information see canonical science today entry:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/02/choosing-notationsyntax-for-canonmath.html.
Poll on notation
I am doing a poll for choosing the final notation of CanonMath for
introducing mathematical formulas in XML documents. Comments,
criticism, suggestions, and varied opinions are welcomed.
Source:
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2006/02/choosing-notationsyntax-for-canonmath.html
--
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
xxein: Regardless of a syntax-relational database it cannot solve gigo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Juan R." |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Science Today, and notation/syntaxes for CanonMath |
11 Feb 2006 12:28:24 PM |
|
|
ha escrito:
xxein: Regardless of a syntax-relational database it cannot solve gigo.
Sorry but your message is a little cryptic for me. I do not know that
you mean by "it".
A popular example of GIGO is a badly written TeX document. Thus, are
your refering to the Hermes example i cited?
Are you refering to posibility of similar problems in future CanonMath?
If yes, i agree with you that it may be imposible to eliminate the 100%
of GI, but i think that a good education of users (via tutorials
emphasizing the importance of semantics over presentation), the
simplicity of the final language (in some cases it is 2000% more easy
due to semantic is extracted from the datument structure) favouring
understanding of users and generation of clean code, and some checking
may eliminate most of errors.
For example, it would be imposible to eliminate wrong semantic markup
via automated tools in several cases, but the example of empty <p>
would be easiliy solved via some XSLT, shematron or even a Schema.
Some colleagues mine are doing a lot of research in the field of valid
chemical documents. In TeX, if your input is incorrect you simply
obtain a wrong display of some text or mth. If your chemical data is
incorrect, you can generate very warning situtations, for example
explosions!!!
I think that i could learn a lot of from them for GIGO.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Science Today, and notation/syntaxes for CanonMath |
11 Feb 2006 09:52:10 PM |
|
|
Juan R. wrote:
xxein@bellsouth.net ha escrito:
xxein: Regardless of a syntax-relational database it cannot solve gigo.
Sorry but your message is a little cryptic for me. I do not know that
you mean by "it".
A popular example of GIGO is a badly written TeX document. Thus, are
your refering to the Hermes example i cited?
Are you refering to posibility of similar problems in future CanonMath?
xxein: I am referring to a physic, rather than the gingerbread of
communication of it.
There is only one physic, regardless of anything else. Discussion on
exactly clear terms with no typos does not make the universe act any
differently. Religions have done that for ages with no effect upon the
universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|