Dear OpenMath developers, these are some new announcements about the OpenMath wiki. First of all, I'd like to announce that subsequent discussions about the wiki will take place on the OpenMath 3 list, as the main task we want to accomplish with the wiki (for now!) is the redesign of the OpenMath 3 CDs.
Now it turned out that I had the wrong CDs in the wiki because of a misunderstanding. The CDs that should actually be there are these ones: https://svn.openmath.org/OpenMath3/cd/MathML They are currently using a crude mixture of OpenMath 2, OpenMath-3-potential, and MathML 2/3 markup, for which I need to add support to SWiM in order to be able to first import them. (In the further progress of OpenMath standardisation, part of this "support" will be dropped again, of course.) So for now the main feature besides browsing is still the discussion. You see that there is a lot to discuss, as e.g. Jakob put many comments from Chris into the Trac -- and into the wiki. You can choose either system for discussing, and we will try to keep it synchronised. Most of you are more familiar with the Trac, and the Trac is more stable than my alpha research prototype SWiM. However, I would also like to encourage you to participate in the wiki discussions. The advantage of this, on the one hand, that the discussion is clearly linked to the subject being discussed, be it a symbol or a CD, or even, e.g., an example for a symbol. Within the next few days I will implement a simple e-mail notification that will keep you up to date about ongoing discussions, and on the main page you can already see a very simple auto-generated list of pages with ongoing discussions. My main research motivation with the discussions is tracking their argumentative structure, and by domain-specific extensions you will soon benefit from that. I believe that discussions about mathematical knowledge items follow general patterns, and to that end I integrated a model where you can report issues (think of Trac tickets!) with CDs/symbols/whatever, for which others then can propose solutions (called "ideas"), and then there is arguing and voting on these ideas, and finally a decision. Now, in special cases, there are repetitive flows of argumentation: e.g. that one argues that from the Description of a CDDefinition it is hard to understand what that symbol actually is, and then somebody suggests adding an example to the symbol. These issue and idea types would then be available for selection in the discussion forum. This is easy to implement once I have seen certain patterns. A bit later I will also offer support for actually putting one such idea into practice, e.g. a button "create this example that 5 users requested". Please see http://kwarc.info/projects/swim/pubs/lwa08-argumentation.pdf for the background. (Much of it is actually implemented; it just needs to be adapted to OpenMath.) Please consider participating in my still-ongoing survey on that topic at http://tinyurl.com/5qdetd if you have not yet done so. I'm happy to assist you with answering, I know that some of the forms are quite long :-/ That's it for now -- stay tuned! Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, DERI Galway/Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Om3 mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
