[Om3] Restarting the discussion!

[Professor James Davenport]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Michael Kohlhase wrote:
> we should really get going and start working in earnest on the OM3 text 
> and CDs. After all, the OpenMath Workshop where we report will be on 
> February 2. This is a three months from now (excluding the holidays).
Fair comment.
[Olga: you wer going to invite me - is this still OK?] 
> To keep you up to date, the W3C Math Work has published a new working 
> draft, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-MathML3-20071005/
Mnay thanks for this - I'll try to read it!
> which fleshes out "strict content MathML", i.e. the OpenMath-compatible 
> subset of MathML3 (the non-strict part of content MathML is called 
> "pragmatic content MathML" and is defined via translation to "strict 
Aha - this is what we used to call 'legacy', but that was an inappropriate 
word, and this is much better.
> MathML". The draft also defines the beginnings of a MathML CD format 
> (compatible with OM, but extended wrt. the specific MathML needs), and 
> most importantly, a notation definition format for MathML, based on the 
> ideas that we discussed in Linz.
> 
> The next large step for MathML3 will be to get the CDs in shape. The 
> consensus is that the Math WG wants to achieve a joint CD document 
> endorsed by the W3C and the OMSoc that presents the K-14 CDs (covering 
> the current content MathML elements and the OpenMath "MathML CD group"). 
So far, there is no concept of a 'CD document' as such, but if we have a 
MathML3 CD group (as we probably should) his would cover it.
> The Math WG has also consented to the plan to develop them taking the  
> current OpenMath CDs as a basis. This puts the ball into our court, and 
> I would like to start planning what to do.
Good that it is in our court, even better that you are planning what to do 
about it!
> 
> I can see the following tasks that could more or less start immediately,
> 
> 1. Identify the K-14 CDs among the OM CDs.
This needs to be done, but it seems to me that the existing MathML CD 
group is basically it.
> 2. think about a OM3 CD format, there were some wishes for addition
>      a) notation definitions (see below).
>      b) defMPs (see James' proposal from Linz)
>      c) presentation MathML in CMPs
>      d) more structure (e.g. the xhtml flow model) in CMPs
>      e) ... please remind me...
> 3) converge on the different intuitions in MathML and OM on e.g. 
> integrals, sums, ...
Right - I had some ideas on this over the summer.
> 4) extend the OM object model by conditions (needed for MathML)
This one I don't understand.
> 5) ... please remind me
> 
> And of course, we need volunteers, so please come forward.
> 
> Another thing (task planning, etc.) I would like to use a bug tracker to 
> support our project planning. I could supply a trac instance for that 
> (and Paul always has a JIRA instance). Are there any preferences?
I agree on the need, but have no strong preferences.
> Finally, the Math WG has weekly telephone conference, and that is quite 
> effective. We could have them too, please tell me what you think,
We could, and probably should nearer the time. I am about to get a new 
desktop machine, which should have a sound card, so that I will be able to 
Skype.

James