Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Hi,

I'd like to suggest that using MathML 3 rather than MathML 2 be
considered in the work to develop CellML 1.2; it is currently in the
tracker as an item for future versions of CellML. I believe my proposal
is well justified for the following reasons:

1. MathML 3 is more mathematically sound than MathML 2. MathML 2 relies
on a number of poorly documented conventions, and has built in operators
that are not very comprehensively defined. On the other hand, MathML 3
has two forms, strict and non-strict, with well-defined rules for
translating from non-strict to strict form, and with every symbol in
strict form mapping to an OpenMath content dictionary to give it
mathematical meaning.

2. The semantics for extending MathML 3 are cleaner are more consistent
- you use an existing OpenMath content dictionary that covers what you
want, or define a new content dictionary.

3. The drafts that I put together (up at
http://www.cellml.org/Members/miller/draft-secondary-spec-dae-events/toplevel.xhtml)

are based on the assumption that MathML 3 will be used, as are the draft
secondary specifications. For example, they refer to content
dictionaries. This allows for certain things to be defined very easily
in the secondary specifications, without the need to spell out things
like the type semantics of operators. For example, my secondary
specification draft for models with DAEs with events spells out which
OpenMath STS types correspond to the CellML real type and which ones
correspond to boolean, and refers to classes of allowed operators by
referring to particular content dictionaries. Having to repeat all this
information explicitly would make secondary specifications considerably
more messy.

4. An effort to prototype my CellML 1.2 draft is well under way (code at
https://github.com/A1kmm/cellml-testbed). This effort is based on MathML
3. Implementation experience helps to verify that a draft standard is
feasible, because the process of implementation can identify issues with
a specification. There is no corresponding implementation experience
that combines the other proposed CellML 1.2 changes with MathML 2.

Best wishes,
Andrew

---

• [cellml-discussion] CellML 1.2 and MathML 3, Andrew Miller, 06/13/2012
  • [cellml-discussion] CellML 1.2 and MathML 3, David Nickerson, 06/13/2012

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.