Just as there is a Hierarchies list for Usenet like "alt.*",
there should be a commonly agreed to Hierarchies for
mathematical equations. Kind of like a Dewey system but
for maths.

e.g. in usenet:
comp.* — Discussion of computer-related topics
news.* — Discussion of Usenet itself
sci.*
— Discussion of scientific subjects

Sooo maybe:
mathDB.circle.* would have mathDB.circle.radius
classified under it.

Of which if this was sent as a query to a MathDB as
"mathDB.circle.radius" it will retrieve semantic marked
up MathML of the formula and how it was derived, and
typical symbols used for it. etc...

Could possibly also have it classified as decimal numbers
like Dewey system as well, for shorter references.

If hooked to a mathematical database (a MathDB), it
would
allow for meta information about each equations to be
retrieved. (e.g. Automatic retrieval of symbol
definitions
and meaning of an equations to place in the 'legends' box
next to an equation. Means faster compilation of
accurate lecture slide. )

Furthermore other information such as derivations can
be
retrieved from the database for an equation. Of which
the
derivations can be recursively expanded as needed until
it
reaches set theory.

The data is stored via MathML as much as possible since
it
can store semantics within it's structure.

So namespaces, but for math. Normally, my bun wouldn't
be dependent on exactly *why* one would want to
implement an idea, but in this case I feel it's relevant. The
idea behind namespaces is that users (of the programming
language) can define their own modules, classes, functions,
and so
on. Unless you're planning to define your own mathematical
functions, why bother? (And, incidentally, if you *are*
planning to, you must be a Haskell programmer.)

One of the most commonly used examples of why object class inheritance should be minimized concerns mathematical objects. I've forgotten now how the example works, but I suspect it's bad news for this idea. [no vote]