Hi all,
I would propose to support more than the 2 encoding strategies. One particular that comes to mind is a JSON encoding format. Manfred From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Kohlhase Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 8:48 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [Om3] Kicking off an OpenMath2+Process (Standard Enhancement) Dear OpenMath Community, the OpenMath workshop in Paris last year asked James Davenport and myself to institute a review and possibly extension process for the OpenMath standard to take into account the developments in web technologies since 2004, and the recent MathML3 Recommentation. This e-mail is to kick off this process, restarting an earlier discussion in 2008, which failed to give concrete results, due to the involvement of key members in the MathML3 process and the unclear context the re-development of content MathML put the discussion. We envision the OM2+ Process (the name was chosen in Paris to make it clear that it may, but need not end in an OpenMath 3 standard), to be an open, transparent, and public discussion process which aims at achieving a consensus. To keep the discussion focused we plan to organize it in "rounds" which are dedicated to a particular general topic. Interested parties make SEPs (Standard Enhancement Proposals; written out documents that motivate and propose a change) and target them towards a particular round. SEPs are discussed via e-mail. Rounds are say 4 weeks long and end with a documented community opinion on the SEPs discussed in that round (minuted by the OM2+ chairs; i.e. James and myself). Other issues can be discussed in a round, but will not lead to a community opinion before they are formalized into a SEP. The OM2+ chairs try to integrate "accepted SEPs" into a draft standard document, which will form the basis for the discussions in the next round. In the first round we should try to give the discussion a mandate; i.e. survey problems, collect SEPs and decide on the scope of the discussions. Other topics might include (we should discuss on the sequencing and additional topics in round 1.) 1. Survey of problems/extensions, errata to OM2. 2. OMOBJ (struture, encodings, equality, roles, ...) 3. Content Dictionaries/Metadata 4. Interaction with Web technologies 5. Conformance (this is something we could finally get around to this time). 6. conservative/pragmatic extensions (can we learn from MathML and allow conservative extensions). 7. "Notation"/ Content->Presentation conversion 8. ... there must be more ... Note that the proposed 4-week schedule should give us 5 rounds before the OpenMath workshope (OM2011 at CICM 2011, see http://cicm11.cs.unibo.it/cicm11). There the chairs will make a progress report and hold a F2F session, where we can discuss the issues in a more focused manner. We are re-using the old OM3 mailing list for the discussions (see http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3), though it is still open whether we produce OpenMath3, OpenMath2 second edition, some clarification notes or (though probably not desirable) nothing at all. The label of the package should be decided after we have decided what the package might be. James Davenport & Michael Kohlhase (as the chairs of the OM2+ process) -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase, Office: Research 1, Room 168 Professor of Computer Science Campus Ring 1, Jacobs University Bremen D-28759 Bremen, Germany tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140 skype: m.kohlhase [email protected] http://kwarc.info/kohlhase ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3440 - Release Date: 02/12/11
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
