[UEB Maths] Word indicators and spacing

[Janet Reynolds]

I'm comfortable with Stephen's suggestion. I think it would be pretty
straightforward to rewrite Section 9 because the same logic is being
applied to the start and finish of the word fragment. However I'm
interested to hear from Bruce, Helen and Joe. I know my email server has
lost a few international messages since our teleconference so if you
have responded since Stephen sent his samples do let me know.
Janet

-----Original Message-----
From: uebmaths-admin@nbp.org [mailto:uebmaths-admin@nbp.org] On Behalf
Of Phippen, Stephen
Sent: Saturday, 15 October 2005 2:25 a.m.
To: uebmaths@nbp.org
Subject: RE: [UEB Maths] Word indicators and spacing

To: UEB Maths Committee
From: Stephen Phippen
Date: 14th October 2005

Responding to Janet's message, and looking at the samples again, I think
I am coming to the conclusion that although the word indicator method
for word fragments is technically superior, at least in mathematical
contexts, it would be more in keeping with UEB if we used the spacing
method. So for UEB I think I would support the latter.

That the word indicator is technically superior in maths is, I think,
fairly obvious from the remarks made and the samples themselves; i.e. it
is unambiguous, the expressions are more balanced and compact, and it
allows more accurate translation back into print.

But it is adding an extra layer of complexity to a code which is meant
to be fairly simple in structure. Also, it would require a measure of
judgement from the transcriber to decide when and when not to use it,
which I guess we want to avoid in UEB which is meant to be unified
across subject areas. Another thing is that I suspect the indicator sign
we have been using and is perhaps the best we can have now, dots 16,
could be tactually difficult embedded within maths - it is not as
distinctive as the corresponding sign, dots 1246, used in the BAUK code.

If we use the spacing method, I think we will have to say that such word
fragments must be spaced from adjacent letters of the same font and
letter case, whether preceding or following the word fragment. (We would
also require a space between a preceding capital letter and a lower case
word fragment, to avoid it being misread as an initial capital to that
fragment.) A separating space is not so necessary in other cases (e.g.
before or after numbers, mathematical signs, Greek letters, etc.) and
can (should?) be omitted. This might cause some imbalance in expressions
(as shown in the previous samples), but I think would be preferable to
allowing it up to transcriber discretion as to whether or not to space
such expressions, as it would lead to ambiguity. (Well, there already is
ambiguity, but here it would be worse because the reader wouldn't know
what to expect.)

So, according to this, as regards spacing we would write:

2cos x
sin(A+B) =3D sinA cosB+cosA sinB
X log y
X Log y (capital L)
xLog y (capital L)


--=20
DISCLAIMER:

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is=20
confidential and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended=20
recipient you should not use, disclose, distribute or copy any of the=20
content of it or of any attachment; you are requested to notify the=20
sender immediately of your receipt of the email and then to delete it=20
and any attachments from your system.

RNIB endeavours to ensure that emails and any attachments generated by
its staff are free from viruses or other contaminants.  However, it=20
cannot accept any responsibility for any  such which are transmitted.
We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email and=20
any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk



_______________________________________________
UEBmaths mailing list
UEBmaths@nbp.org
http://nbp.org/mailman/listinfo/uebmaths