LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for MODS Archives


MODS Archives

MODS Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

MODS Home

MODS Home

MODS  March 2005

MODS March 2005

Subject:

Re: back to inline markup, math

From:

Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Object Description Schema List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:05:13 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (152 lines)

I wonder if we couldn't treat math like we do other non-latin
vernaculars, and allow for alternate forms -- one that is the equivalent
of a transliteration, the other that is native. That would give systems
that have limited display capabilities the option of selecting the
latin- or unicode-based form, while MathML-compliant systems could
select that version of the heading or text. It also seems to be better
to treat whole fields rather than parts of fields, that is that we would
have a title field that is transliterated, and another title field that
is MathML compliant even though it also will have basic Unicode
characters in it.

But, as I recall, we haven't really developed a method of creating
parallel fields in different encodings, i.e. transliterated vs. vernacular.

kc

Timothy W. Cole wrote:

>As a mathematics librarian, I'd lobby for MathML even in MODS titles, and
>would strongly second David's assessment that capacity for MathML in
>abstracts is essential. It can even be an issue in specialized subject
>headings (e.g., the full Mathematical Subject Classification [MSC], used
>universally in research mathematics), assuming the possibility that such
>classification schemes could eventually be used in practice with MODS.
>
>Granted mathematicians currently have to live with the fact that existing
>online catalogs don't do a decent job of incorporating  mathematics in title
>and bibliographic descriptions. That doesn't make it a good situation. Based
>on my observations here at Illinois, what this means in practice is that
>academic research  mathematicians just don't use online catalogs when
>subject searching as much as they might otherwise. They use instead
>MathSciNet and/or ZentralBlatt Math, both of which fortunately index the
>print monograph literature in mathematics well and thoroughly. Online
>catalogs are turned to mostly for known-item searching, after they've
>identified the works of interest from another source. Not accommodating
>embedded markup such as MathML in MODS records won't make the situation
>worse, but it won't make it better either -- and it will limit potential
>reach of MODS to communities that need to allow markup from other namespaces
>in metadata records.
>
>Of course even in MathSciNet math searching is crude. Basically MathSciNet
>just embeds and indexes TeX in titles and abstracts. This allows researchers
>literate in TeX (and that includes most academics in this discipline as well
>as a number of physicists and engineers) to do crude searching in MathScinet
>on the TeX itself. If you don't know TeX, too bad, and even if you do there
>are serious limits in how well you can search raw, often author-generated
>TeX.
>
>So the current TeX approach to searching math is still seen as insufficient
>by many, which is why there is considerable ongoing work in this domain --
>e.g., last spring's meeting on enhancing the searching of mathematics hosted
>by the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications
>(http://www.ima.umn.edu/complex/spring/searching.html). Better ways to
>search both TeX and MathML are being investigated, though the smart money
>seems to be that MathML will ultimately be more useful and powerful, at
>least for searching purposes.
>
>>From my perspective, MODS would be of greater interest if it allowed
>inclusion of markup from other namespaces in at least a few appropriate
>elements. Initially we can assume that most MODS-aware applications would do
>an inadequate job of dumbing-down, indexing and displaying such non-MODS
>content, but that would improve over time, certainly for systems designed to
>meet needs of special communities. I'm not too concerned about standardizing
>right this minute on how MODS-aware applications handle these issues in the
>short-term. (If you can get use to seeing raw TeX embedded in bibliographic
>records, you can get use to almost anything.) But it'd be a shame if MODS
>didn't at least anticipate the basic content needs and build in early on the
>facility to deal with them.
>
>In my opinion this would best be done by allowing foreign-namespace elements
>as children of appropriate MODS elements. The alternative approach suggested
>of adding a <span> or similar element as a default child element for this
>purpose would also probably work, though it seems to me a little cumbersome.
>Display rendering is a tough nut, but right now there are Unicode characters
>you can embed in your titles that no existing generic MODS application will
>render correctly (because some of the specialized glyphs aren't widely
>disseminated yet -- see the STIX font project). You can't do everything at
>once. Figure out how to allow the essential content and markup and then
>fine-tune the rendering issue, perhaps by experimentation with different
>alternatives.
>
>Timothy W. Cole
>Mathematics Librarian
>University of Illinois at UC
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Metadata Object Description Schema List
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bruce D'Arcus
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:02 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: [MODS] back to inline markup, math
>>
>>I think I forgot to report this excerpt of a conversation
>>with David Carlisle; XML and XSLT (and unicode) expert, as
>>well as editor of the MathML spec and co-chair of the W3 math group.
>>
>>I asked him about the necessity of using MathML -- versus
>>just using unicode characters -- in titles for
>>mathematicians, who have long been able to add inline
>>equations to bibliographic records in BibTeX.  Here was his response:
>>
>>
>>
>>>For many titles, even mathematical titles, unicode plain text is
>>>sufficient, you have greek and all the operators.
>>>
>>>
>>mathematicians have
>>
>>
>>>a long history of having to get their article titles into search
>>>engines and printed book catalogues that don't have mathematical
>>>capability so it is exceptionally rare to require really fancy 2
>>>dimensional formating in a title. The main problem is not
>>>
>>>
>>titles, it's
>>
>>
>>>abstracts or other paragraph sized texts that your biblio
>>>
>>>
>>format might
>>
>>
>>>allow, there you really do need full mathematical layout
>>>
>>>
>>possibilities
>>
>>
>>>so mathml is your friend.
>>>
>>>
>>Bruce
>>
>>
>
>
>

--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
[log in to unmask] http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2023
November 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
June 2019
May 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager