Since time before OM2014 is running short, and it could be nice to at least
have finished something, one possible theme for Thursday's F2F meeting could
be to take care of the "low hanging fruit": those trac tickets that are
clearly about correcting errors in the 2.0 OM specification.
From my sketch on 2014-05-27 at grading some of the tickets in the Trac
from this perspective:
omstd2.0.1:
#9 (Update to new URI spec);
#83 (Default CDBase is only specified quite implicitly);
#104 (OMR examples false);
#106 (Specify a MIME type for OpenMath);
#107 (Binary encoding is bigendian);
#108 (typo in OMSTD2.0 chapter);
#114 (Endianness of OMF);
#138 (CD's CDBase declaration is mandatory);
omstd2.1:
MathML encoding (big, but not a major change to anything previously
established);
#1 (Definition of alpha conversion underspecified);
(#1 might actually be in the previous group.)
#75 (general formulation issues);
#109 (Roles and Complience);
#126 (CD versioning probably not compatible with CD URIs);
#127 (clarify specification of CD URIs and CDURL for linked data);
#128 (Make CDSignatures or Signature use cdbase);
#131 (Disambiguate CDGroup/CDName);
#134 (Specify or forbid whitespace normalisation);
#143 (Variables not bound in head of binding);
(#143 overlaps with #1. It's possibly the #143 part of #1 that should go in
the previous group.)
#146 (Bit numbers start at what?);
#151 (STS documentation is unclear about binders);
Note that there are tickets that I didn't grade because I did not understand
them. So there may be things that belong up there which I didn't list.
The actual agenda *suggestion* would be to go through this list (extended as
appropriate) and then agree for each item (i) whether it is a simple bugfix
and (ii) whether the fix for this bug is nontrivial enough that it really
needs an explicit formal decision of the OM society (which could happen in
Coimbra). I suspect #138 would for example fall into this latter category.
Rehashing major (and controversial) proposal, as we spent much time on
yesterday, does on the other hand not seem like a productive approach; those
issues need to be delt with in writing (rather than verbally) since the
issues often depend on subtle distinctions, and would benefit from the full
academic paraphernalia (e.g. referencing relevant literature). The idea of
writing position papers for OM2014 is probably a good idea, but time is
running short (the announced deadline is Saturday). Maybe a slight deadline
extension could be a good idea?
Lars Hellström
_______________________________________________
Om3 mailing list
[email protected]
http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
