toward a sep30/oct1 meeting

In the continuing series of "Where are we now?" pieces,
I'll briefly summarize my current understanding.

1. The Wolfram Proposal (WP) is on the table and under
development. Bruce is creating a Mathematica renderer; Ron will
filter AMS data to the renderer; Bruce will fill out some more
details of the proposal.  Semantical mappings will be achieved
in the "2nd phase" (beyond submission of this proposal to W3C),
and although Bruce and Neil are confident that template matching
will be quite powerful, Ron has requested some more detail on
this before our October meeting.

We have also discussed the possibility of using ISO 12083 or an
extension thereof for display-list format.  This will enable a
direct path of communication to those who wish to post legacy
data in HTML-Math without "upgrading" to HTML-Math's fuller
"expression" requirements.  Ralph has posted some questions and
a schematic of his understanding here, and has asked for response.

2. Ping has posted much information on MINSE.  Bruce and Ron
have made comments in reaction.  In certain ways MINSE can be
integrated readily with the WP.  Bruce has asserted existence of
a fundamental difference between the WP and MINSE insofar as the
former is notational while he feels the latter is semantic.  Ron
posted questions about whether the difference was more one of
attitude, and asked for a comparison of MINSE's embedded
semantical hints as against the Wolfram macros.  Ultimately:
to what degree can MINSE and the WP be integrated, and can we
expect to accomplish something in that regard before the October

3. Robert has gone a long way toward writing a Java renderer
which reads display list format (as specified in the original
WP).  Dave is writing a lexer and pattern-matcher in Java which
is to interface with Robert's renderer, although there is
apparently some question now as to whether these two will meet.
Dave has been working on his more EQN-like user language, and
has indicated some desire to write to an OpenMath expression
language.  Even if Dave's work demos the EQN-like language,
Dave and Robert should meet somewhere for our purposes of showing
feasibility to W3C.

4. Stephen Watt has offered the analytic talents of some people
in his Safir group to examine proposals on our plate.  Current
thinking is that we should send our collections of information
to Stephen in the next few weeks so that his people can give us
feedback in time for considered discussion at our October

5. Bob has indicated that the WP can broadly conform to
OpenMath desiderata as long as we keep an eye on provision of
semantical contexts for those who wish to do so.  This seems
achievable within all proposals before us.

6. The DTD undergoing development with the Roy Pike group has in
mind an approach which is quite consistent with OpenMath's
notion of contexts.  Given that we plan to provide the capability
of supplying OpenMath contexts, we may well be broadly consistent
with the Pike effort.


Bruce has been remotely connected in Russia for the past month;
Dave has been in France; Ping is awaiting discussion in Japan;
Patrick and Nico have been on vacation the last several weeks.
It's no surprise we have some feeling that progress is lagging
or that some disintegration has taken place.  If people have
disagreement as to the position statements above, please do post
those disagreements.  Barring such, I'll work toward developing
appropriate details of the proposals before us and integrating
them all in preparation for the October meeting.

Bob has said that Oct 10/11 will likely be impossible for
him as meeting dates.  No one has commented similarly for
Sep 30/Oct 1, so I'm inclined to tell Susan Hardy at W3C to
make arrangements for those dates.  Given requirements for
Saturday stays to get lower airfares, it may also be possible
for some of us to meet Sunday Sep 29 for collateral discussion.