[Om3] Initializing OM3 at 2013 Process

[Lars Hellström]

Michael Kohlhase skrev 2013-10-01 09.04:
> Dear all,
>
> the summer is over, and the dust of the new semester (for me) has somewhat
> settled, so we should get on with our mandate to look at extension of OM2,
> possibly with a view towards an OpenMath 3 standard. I have attached JHD's
> meeting minutes; here are the relevant parts, with my comments inline
>
>  > MK listed some change suggestions.
>  > 1. Better rˆole system (MK/FR)
>  > 2. n-ary binders (see Hellstr ̈om’s second presentation)
>  > 3. first-class sequences (Horozal/Kohlhase)
>  > 4. first-class records (Kohlhase)
>  > 5. flexForm CDs
>  > 6. Notation Definitions
>  > 7. DefMPs
>  > 8. Document/develop CD writing tools (see Hellstr ̈om’s first presentation)
>  > 9. Recognise Content MathML as an encoding.
>  > 10. Bug reports
>
> Some of these issues are already raised (and discussed in the TRAC at
> http://trac.mathweb.org/OM3 I propose to just adopt the TRAC as an open
> resource for discussion and planning.

This seems natural. (Pity though that it, as I recall things, was said at 
the meeting that a *new* tracker would be set up for the new enhancement 
process; waiting for that to happen was a major reason for me to bother 
people about the infrastructure work. If it instead had been stated that the 
existing tracker would be used, then I would probably have filed some issue 
during the summer.)

Be warned, though, that TRAC is a somewhat heavyweight tracker system, where 
the purposes of many bells and whistles (milestones, due dates, assignment, 
etc.) are unclear to the beginner, especially in the context that we will be 
using it. There should be some sort of an executive summary document for how 
we will be using it in this enhancement process, that clarifies what is 
important (and how it should be interpreted) and what does not.

Process-wise, I think there are three important categories for the issues:
* Issues that need to be dealt with before MathML3 standardisation.
* Issues that are OM2.0 errata/clarifications.
* Issues that are new features (and would require a version number increment).
I suspect these might qualify as "milestones", but I'm not completely sure 
about that. There are also a bunch of old milestones in the TRAC which 
should perhaps be retired (if possible), since they don't correspond much to 
the present process and will therefore be confusing.

> Everyone interested is invited to make
> an account at https://trac.mathweb.org/register/register and tell me the
> account name (please no funny characters and blanks) and I will give you
> permissions.

I believe I did that in a separate mail, yes?

[snip]
> We should also have a kick-off skype meeting; would next week suit
> (generally, I will set up a doodle).

Is a doodle forthcoming? For me, I suppose this week is about as good (or 
bad) as any other: some hours I can't due to teaching, other hours I can.

Lars Hellström