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

[Robert Miner]

Hi.

The our charter expires at the end of April 2010.

- We are currently in violation of the heartbeat requirement, since a WD
was due out Feb 17.
- A last call draft is required, and the review period must be at least
3 weeks.
- Once we have responded to last review comments, we become a Candidate
Recommendation
  and issue a Call for Implementations.  There is no fixed length, but
it has to be
  long enough to demonstrate 2 implementations for everything.  
- Once we've done that, we become a Proposed Recommendation, and there
is a final call
  for review, which must be at least 4 weeks.
- Provided you get through all that, you become a Recommendation.

Note that from Last Call onward, at every stage, you need to allow time
to do the following:

   1. Record the group's decision to request advancement.
   2. Provide public documentation of all changes (both substantive and
minor) to the technical report since the previous step.
   3. Report which, if any, of the Working Group's requirements for this
document have changed since the previous step.
   4. Report any changes in dependencies with other groups.
   5. Show evidence of wide review.
   6. Formally address all issues raised about the document since the
previous step.
   7. Report any Formal Objections.

When we requested the last extension, the W3C team strongly suggested
the extension to April 2010 based on their feeling we wouldn't be able
to satisfy the requirements for a Recommendation before that.
Unfortunately, that was based on our assertion we could enter *Candidate
Recommendation* stage in November of last year. 

On paper it is still possible, of course.  But as you may have noticed,
I am extremely worried that the W3C team had good grounds for telling us
to allow more time, and that our schedule wasn't realistic. At any rate,
in direct answer to your question, this is my attempt at a timeline:

WD:  April 2009
LC:  June 2009 
CR:  September 2009
PR:  January 2010
Rec: April 2010

I've stuck in a WD in April, since it is pretty hard to believe the next
draft will be a LC draft, and I don't believe we can get a draft of any
kind out sooner than the end of next month.  That gives the summer to
deal with last call comments, and the fall for implementation.  I
presume several of us will work on implementation through the summer to
get a jump on CR.  

--Robert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-math-request at w3.org [mailto:member-math-request at w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Michael Kohlhase
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:17 PM
> To: David Carlisle
> Cc: om3 at openmath.org; member-math at w3.org
> Subject: Re: Pragmatics, timing, summary, and proposed resolutions
> 
> 
> 
> David Carlisle wrote:
> >> I am wondering if you read the text I have written. The whole point
> was
> >> to try to dissociate the translation from the strict MathML. And
the
> >> explicitly stated point (plan for MathML) was to do the translation
> in a
> >> way that is OM2-compatible.
> >>
> >
> >
> > If that's what you meant then I agree, but what you wrote appeared
to
> > suggest that we do that for the next WD of MathML3 but then revise
> the
> > MathML draft after the OM meeting in July. If that isn't what you
> meant,
> > I don't know how to interpret the text that I quoted.
> >
> > What did you mean by
> >
> >
> >> so that they can be incorporated into the MathML3 specification of
> >> SCM3.
> >>
> >
> > If you didn't mean that the MathML draft should change after July?
> >
> There are two possible ways of changing the draft, one is to change
the
> pragmatic-to-strict translation (big ticket item), and another is to
> possibly extend the definition of strict content MathML (one line in
> the
> schema and a couple in the spec text). You were harping on about the
> first, which was explicitly excluded by my e-mail)
> 
> > > then MathML's translation to strict shouldn't use them as we'd be
> too far
> > > down the line to redo all the translations to strict (even if we
> wanted
> > > to).
> 
> 
> Yes, I do want to have a  possibility for changing the MathML3 spec
for
> the sake of compatibility, and in fact we may very well be obliged to
> if that is part of the last call comments process.
> 
> @Robert, could you please enlighten us about the planned timetable for
> last call?
> 
> Michael
> 
> > Confused,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> _
> > The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in
England
> > and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is:
> > Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom.
> >
> > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is
> > powered by MessageLabs.
> >
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> _
> >
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>