[Om3] Pragmatics, timing, summary, and proposed resolutions

[Michael Kohlhase]

Dear all,

I would like to try and summarize the state of play to allow us to make 
progres, drawing on Robert's "pragmatics mail".

We seem to have a classical coordination problem that makes 
standardization so hard, let me try to summarize the situation; going 
into goals (1) and organizational matters (2)

On the MathML side:

M1) we want to achieve OM compatibility and better foundations by
    a) coordinating strict content MathML with OM (SCM3)
    b) giving nons-trict content MathML a meaning in terms of strict 
content
        MathML (the pragmatic to strict translation P2ST)

M2) we have to get a Recommendation done inside the charter time, else 
all the work is useless.
     a) this recommendation needs to specify SCM3 fully
     b) this recommendation needs to specify P2ST as fully as it can be 
done.
     c) we need to get a draft out of the door that is almost complete 
and future-proof in the next
         weeks.

On the OpenMath side:

O1) if we rev OM2, then we want to strengthen OM3 for the future.
     a) we want to make OM3 objects synchronous with  SCM3
     b) we may or may not want to make other changes to OM3

O2) formally, the OpenMath society (OMSoc) has to approve any changes to 
the OM standard
     a) nothing can formally be decided before the OM WS on CICM09
     b) there is not even consensus in the OM3 commitee

So even if I personally would like things to be different, I see that we 
have to do something along the following lines to protect the interests 
of the two groups.

   1. for the Math WG, we cannot wait for OpenMath to approve anything
      for the coming MathML3 WD. As a consequence we will have to move
      ahead with the P2ST as it currently stands, translating into OM2
      objects in the anticipation that any changes that the OMSoc will
      approve will be backwards compatible. That will enable us to move
      forward on the next WD.
   2. for the OMSoc; if it wants to make changes to OM Objects (e.g. for
      the DavKoh proposal), then these must approved on the CICM
      meeting, so that they can be incorporated into the MathML3
      specification of SCM3.
   3. Changes to the SCM3 can be incorporated into the MathML3 spec, as
      long as they are backwards compatible (and thus do not harm the
      P2ST). We anticipate this to be doable, since the difficult part
      of MathML3/Chapter4 is to get the P2ST right. We should probably
      incorporate an ednote alerting users of possible extensions of the
      SCM3 as a result of the MathML3/OM3 coordination process.
   4.   The OM3 group must prepare an OM3 draft  fragment on OM Objects
      that can be voted on at the OM at CICM09 meeting, so that MathmL3/OM3
      coordination can go ahead. The bulk of the coordination work on
      the OM side has been in the realm of content dictionaries, and
      that can go on before or after the OM at CICM09 meeting.

I hope this dissects the issues involved in the coordination and lets 
all get back to work.

Michael

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase,       Office: Research 1, Room 62
  Professor of Computer Science     Campus Ring 12,
  School of Engineering&  Science   D-28759 Bremen, Germany
  Jacobs University Bremen*         tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140
  m.kohlhase at jacobs-university.de http://kwarc.info/kohlhase
  skype: m.kohlhase   * on Sabbatical in Auckland (NZ) until VII/2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------