[Om] [Om3] Kicking off an OpenMath2+Process (Standard Enhancement)

Manfred Riem mriem at manorrock.org
Sun Feb 13 19:10:59 CET 2011

Hi all,


I would propose to support more than the 2 encoding strategies.

One particular that comes to mind is a JSON encoding format.




From: om3-bounces at openmath.org [mailto:om3-bounces at openmath.org] On Behalf
Of Michael Kohlhase
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2011 8:48 AM
To: om at openmath.org; om3 at openmath.org
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
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
  m.kohlhase at jacobs-university.de 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://openmath.org/pipermail/om/attachments/20110213/080288fc/attachment.htm 

More information about the Om mailing list