>> I quickly scanned the minutes of the last meeting and it was agreed there >> that CD-content issues should be sorted out outside of the (OMOBJ/CD) >> language specification. > > I think that concerned primarily tickets about the contents of _specific_ > extant content dictionaries. E.g. > http://www.openmath.org/cd/contrib/cd/logic1p.ocd is not even a valid content > dictionary at the moment.
I sure understand but the concern is general. >> While the guidelines are not part of the standard, the aims of the >> guidelines could be. >> I'm thinking that the objective of a completely free exchange of CDs is >> important (hence expect some licenses), > > The less one as author needs to worry about licences, the better. That is true so… make that completely public domain? (so that anyone can even resell this) That might be too harsh for someone frigidly starting, I promise! Therefore I think it is the place to remind them that the more open they do it, the less chances there is that some people will reject employ the CD for some incompatibility with their activities. >> that participating to an open debate among potential interoperability >> stakeholders is useful, … > > Does that, among other things, imply that one should get responses when > posting to OM mailing lists? ;-) I means that "the community" should feel guilty of the mechanism "no answer" => "no good CD" whereas now, the author may feel many other things such as "did I write to the right person? Is my CD valid? Can it be useful to someone I did not suspect?" paul _______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
