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

[Professor James Davenport]

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Michael Kohlhase wrote:
> Dear Lars,
> 
> I think that this is a very good procedural observation, which may make
> dealing with change in the OpenMath realm much simpler and more controlled.
> On 15.2.11 14:52, Lars Hellström wrote:
> > Since additional encoding strategies probably would have development cycles
> > that are different from that of OM itself, it might be useful to keep them
> > as
> > separate documents. In particular, that would make it easier to put forth a
> > new encoding at a point in time where noone is actively working on updating
> > the standard. I believe Unicode has something called "Standard Annexes"
> > which
> > are part of the standard but separate documents; perhaps this is a term that
> > could be reused.
> >
> > My gut feeling is that an encoding "designed for language X" would probably
> > be best off in such a separate-but-standard document. For the binary
> > encoding
> > and a hypothetical content MathML encoding, one could probably go either
> > way.
I agree with Michael. We will need ONE encoding in the standard itsefl, 
though, otherwise we can't give examples, and that might as well be the 
<OMA>... one (which will also need a better name).
James