D6.2: Initial DKS base Design (including base survey and Requirements Workshop Report) #136

Closed
minrk opened this Issue Sep 8, 2015 · 78 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@minrk
Contributor

minrk commented Sep 8, 2015

The OpenDreamKit proposal had envisioned WP6: Data/Knowledge/Software bases as a foundational enterprise that would develop a knowledge-based architecture over the course of the project and would allow to re-engineer ad-hoc interfaces between systems (e.g. from T3.2 (#51)) on a more semantic basis -- the knowledge aspect (K). Consequently, the proposal envisioned concentrating the data (D) aspect on the mathematical knowledge bases (specifically LMFDB, OEIS, and FindStat) and proposed a host of foundational investigations of mathematical for the software (S) aspect with applications e.g. in the verification of algorithms.

Already the kickoff meeting in Paris in September 2015 revealed that the D/K/S aspects are much more tightly coupled in systems than anticipated. This was confirmed by the DKS survey conducted subsequently. In particular, the participants of WP6 identified the interoperability of OpenDreamKit systems to be one of the most critical steps in creating a VRE toolkit. Thus we prioritized tasks T6.1 (#123), T6.2 (#124), T6.3 (#125) and organized a series of workshops and code-maratons to develop a semantic foundation for system interoperability and simultaneously test it in implementations.

As a consequence, we have completed the initial design of D/K/S-bases (for this deliverable) in parallel with the initial implementation of a DKS base format based on OMDoc/MMT and the implementation of a DKS base system itself based on the MMT system (both for D6.3 (#137)), all activities fuelling each other. D6.3 (#137) was thus completed about three months ahead of schedule. Note that the RNC schema envisioned in the title proved un-necessary since, with the refined Math-in-the-Middle (MitM) design, the normal OMDoc/MMT schema is sufficient. Due to the resulting tight coupling between this deliverable and D6.3 (#137), and for the convenience of the reader, we have decided to report on both deliverables together.

In this report we therefore present the design process towards DKS-theories including the overall architecture (for this deliverable), a survey of the systems involved (for D6.3 (#137)), our current implementation (for D6.3 (#137)) as well as our plans for the future. Each part is labeled by the deliverable they contribute to mainly.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Jun 30, 2016

Member

this is a sister deliverable to #137 and will be largely done together with that. We are making progress on this in the WP6 workshops. I think that @pdehaye should be also involved in writing this up.

Member

kohlhase commented Jun 30, 2016

this is a sister deliverable to #137 and will be largely done together with that. We are making progress on this in the WP6 workshops. I think that @pdehaye should be also involved in writing this up.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 21, 2016

Member

@pdehaye you made a survey in Paris and St. Andrews I recall, could you please write this up as '(including base survey and Requirements Workshop Report)'. I would be very grateful.
cc: @tkw1536

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 21, 2016

@pdehaye you made a survey in Paris and St. Andrews I recall, could you please write this up as '(including base survey and Requirements Workshop Report)'. I would be very grateful.
cc: @tkw1536

@tkw1536

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tkw1536

tkw1536 Aug 24, 2016

Contributor

I have started writing this up properly. You can find my progress so far at

https://github.com/KWARC/OpenDreamKit/tree/master/WP6/D6.2

@pdehaye So far I have not referenced the survey, I will probably get some work done on that this afternoon. Feel free to insert it already.
@kohlhase I had to switch from bibtex to biber, as for some reason the bst file was broken. If you want me to switch back, let me know.
@florian-rabe: It would be great if I could get some help from you regarding the overall structure and framework of the report.

Edit: Updated link because we changed branches

Contributor

tkw1536 commented Aug 24, 2016

I have started writing this up properly. You can find my progress so far at

https://github.com/KWARC/OpenDreamKit/tree/master/WP6/D6.2

@pdehaye So far I have not referenced the survey, I will probably get some work done on that this afternoon. Feel free to insert it already.
@kohlhase I had to switch from bibtex to biber, as for some reason the bst file was broken. If you want me to switch back, let me know.
@florian-rabe: It would be great if I could get some help from you regarding the overall structure and framework of the report.

Edit: Updated link because we changed branches

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Aug 25, 2016

Contributor

To give a summary of the current situation: the survey is scattered in #123, other issues referenced from #123, and here. Far from ideal, but a good starting point.
I am starting to work on this now, first by just dumping the scattered data into the file you are working on (in parallel to installing Latex on my new computer, which could become a blocker...)

Contributor

pdehaye commented Aug 25, 2016

To give a summary of the current situation: the survey is scattered in #123, other issues referenced from #123, and here. Far from ideal, but a good starting point.
I am starting to work on this now, first by just dumping the scattered data into the file you are working on (in parallel to installing Latex on my new computer, which could become a blocker...)

@tkw1536

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tkw1536

tkw1536 Aug 27, 2016

Contributor

@pdehaye I have given you push access to the KWARC fork. I will do a bunch more writing today, I will probably pull in your changes after that.

Contributor

tkw1536 commented Aug 27, 2016

@pdehaye I have given you push access to the KWARC fork. I will do a bunch more writing today, I will probably pull in your changes after that.

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Aug 27, 2016

Contributor

I already pushed to KWARC's repo

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Tom Wiesing notifications@github.com
wrote:

@pdehaye https://github.com/pdehaye I have given you push access to the
KWARC fork. I will do a bunch more writing today, I will probably pull in
your changes after that.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#136 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADH2X4SgkQS6u8eZUwqN5NCZ0PR134Iqks5qj_J5gaJpZM4F5zNI
.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Aug 27, 2016

I already pushed to KWARC's repo

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Tom Wiesing notifications@github.com
wrote:

@pdehaye https://github.com/pdehaye I have given you push access to the
KWARC fork. I will do a bunch more writing today, I will probably pull in
your changes after that.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#136 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADH2X4SgkQS6u8eZUwqN5NCZ0PR134Iqks5qj_J5gaJpZM4F5zNI
.

@tkw1536

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tkw1536

tkw1536 Aug 27, 2016

Contributor

I was working on the D6.2 branch, so I didn't even see that. I will just move to master.

Contributor

tkw1536 commented Aug 27, 2016

I was working on the D6.2 branch, so I didn't even see that. I will just move to master.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 27, 2016

Member

I already pushed to KWARC's repo

@pdehaye I think we should organize this so that the survey itself is given as an appendix to the report and instead of the current section there is a short description of what we learn from this survey. That gives us a self-contained report (by the appendix) and the high-level requirements we need to justify the DK(S) theories.

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 27, 2016

I already pushed to KWARC's repo

@pdehaye I think we should organize this so that the survey itself is given as an appendix to the report and instead of the current section there is a short description of what we learn from this survey. That gives us a self-contained report (by the appendix) and the high-level requirements we need to justify the DK(S) theories.

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Aug 27, 2016

Contributor

That's a good idea.

On 27 Aug 2016, at 14:38, Michael Kohlhase notifications@github.com wrote:

I already pushed to KWARC's repo

@pdehaye I think we should organize this so that the survey itself is given as an appendix to the report and instead of the current section there is a short description of what we learn from this survey. That gives us a self-contained report (by the appendix) and the high-level requirements we need to justify the DK(S) theories.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Aug 27, 2016

That's a good idea.

On 27 Aug 2016, at 14:38, Michael Kohlhase notifications@github.com wrote:

I already pushed to KWARC's repo

@pdehaye I think we should organize this so that the survey itself is given as an appendix to the report and instead of the current section there is a short description of what we learn from this survey. That gives us a self-contained report (by the appendix) and the high-level requirements we need to justify the DK(S) theories.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 27, 2016

Member

That's a good idea.

if you pull, then @tkw1536 has already put your part into a new file in the appendix.

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 27, 2016

That's a good idea.

if you pull, then @tkw1536 has already put your part into a new file in the appendix.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 27, 2016

Member

@florian-rabe should also subscribe to this.

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 27, 2016

@florian-rabe should also subscribe to this.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 27, 2016

Member

Problem I am a bit worried about the fact that we have promised a design of DKS theories for this report and we are mostly reporting only on DK theories.
Background Even though we have studied biform theories in OMDoc, we have not worked on this aspect much in the first 12 months, since we have concentrated on the MitM approach to interoperability.
Solution? I have thought about this in the last days, and I think that we can (and should) think of the MitM information architecture (think of the clouds picture with the interface theory graphs that are generated from the systems like GAP or Sage and the hand-curated MitM theory in the middle) can be seen as a integration of the S (for Software) component into DKS theories -- actually we do not get "DKS theories", as forseen in the proposal, but "DKS theory graphs", where we have

  • K-Theories (regular MMT theories) for the specifications and math knowledge,
  • DK-theories (as we introduce them in D6.2) for models and concrete mathematical structures (e.g. OEIS, LMFDB, FindStat), and
  • the alignments and interviews (they are really interpretations and implementation mappings) as the integration of the S component.
    If we then move our focus from verification of algorithms (only mentioned in one sentence at the end of T6.8) towards interoperability, then do not need to build on biform theories, but can build on the MitM architecture instead. I think that this is legitimate, and actually this shift in perception is a major result of our work in ODK.
    I would like to have some feedback on this, and if that is positive, I would try to extend the report to base itself on this "initial design".
Member

kohlhase commented Aug 27, 2016

Problem I am a bit worried about the fact that we have promised a design of DKS theories for this report and we are mostly reporting only on DK theories.
Background Even though we have studied biform theories in OMDoc, we have not worked on this aspect much in the first 12 months, since we have concentrated on the MitM approach to interoperability.
Solution? I have thought about this in the last days, and I think that we can (and should) think of the MitM information architecture (think of the clouds picture with the interface theory graphs that are generated from the systems like GAP or Sage and the hand-curated MitM theory in the middle) can be seen as a integration of the S (for Software) component into DKS theories -- actually we do not get "DKS theories", as forseen in the proposal, but "DKS theory graphs", where we have

  • K-Theories (regular MMT theories) for the specifications and math knowledge,
  • DK-theories (as we introduce them in D6.2) for models and concrete mathematical structures (e.g. OEIS, LMFDB, FindStat), and
  • the alignments and interviews (they are really interpretations and implementation mappings) as the integration of the S component.
    If we then move our focus from verification of algorithms (only mentioned in one sentence at the end of T6.8) towards interoperability, then do not need to build on biform theories, but can build on the MitM architecture instead. I think that this is legitimate, and actually this shift in perception is a major result of our work in ODK.
    I would like to have some feedback on this, and if that is positive, I would try to extend the report to base itself on this "initial design".
@tkw1536

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tkw1536

tkw1536 Aug 28, 2016

Contributor

@kohlhase I have rewritten the introduction towards what you suggested. Apart from adding a figure to illustrate the MiTM architecture it is completed. It would be great to get some feedback.

Contributor

tkw1536 commented Aug 28, 2016

@kohlhase I have rewritten the introduction towards what you suggested. Apart from adding a figure to illustrate the MiTM architecture it is completed. It would be great to get some feedback.

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Aug 29, 2016

Contributor

Does anybody know how to make "paragraph" behave like "subsubsubsection" ?

\setcounter{secnumdepth}{4}
seems to go part of the way, but it needs a newline at the end, and maybe a
change of font.

I can Google it, but the answers I find are for the general "article", and
don't really work for "deliverablereport".

It's necessary for the survey as it has several layers of nesting:

appendix / system / {data, knowledge, software} / question
section / subsection / subsubsection / paragraph

Thanks

Paul

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Tom Wiesing notifications@github.com
wrote:

@kohlhase https://github.com/kohlhase I have rewritten the introduction
towards what you suggested. Apart from adding a figure to illustrate the
MiTM architecture it is completed. It would be great to get some feedback.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#136 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADH2X7BrOjFkDMXDNxSgLrMWQMtiWqXIks5qkglvgaJpZM4F5zNI
.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Aug 29, 2016

Does anybody know how to make "paragraph" behave like "subsubsubsection" ?

\setcounter{secnumdepth}{4}
seems to go part of the way, but it needs a newline at the end, and maybe a
change of font.

I can Google it, but the answers I find are for the general "article", and
don't really work for "deliverablereport".

It's necessary for the survey as it has several layers of nesting:

appendix / system / {data, knowledge, software} / question
section / subsection / subsubsection / paragraph

Thanks

Paul

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Tom Wiesing notifications@github.com
wrote:

@kohlhase https://github.com/kohlhase I have rewritten the introduction
towards what you suggested. Apart from adding a figure to illustrate the
MiTM architecture it is completed. It would be great to get some feedback.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#136 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADH2X7BrOjFkDMXDNxSgLrMWQMtiWqXIks5qkglvgaJpZM4F5zNI
.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 29, 2016

Member

actually, deliverablereport is based on amsart.cls, maybe you should try that in your query.

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 29, 2016

actually, deliverablereport is based on amsart.cls, maybe you should try that in your query.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 29, 2016

Member

actually, I would like to use article.cls in in any case. Maybe we can change deliverablereport.cls?

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 29, 2016

actually, I would like to use article.cls in in any case. Maybe we can change deliverablereport.cls?

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 29, 2016

Member

actually, I would like to use article.cls in in any case.

that is not trivial we need to handle the abstract (amsart does that well)

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 29, 2016

actually, I would like to use article.cls in in any case.

that is not trivial we need to handle the abstract (amsart does that well)

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 29, 2016

Member

I have tweaked the figures a bit and snippetized the sections, please pull, if you are working on this.

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 29, 2016

I have tweaked the figures a bit and snippetized the sections, please pull, if you are working on this.

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Aug 29, 2016

Contributor

Thanks, basing myself on amsart seems like a good start. Needs more tweaking from me though. My macros for the packages introduced too many spaces with \,, but those were needed in some cases. Switched to using xspace package.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Aug 29, 2016

Thanks, basing myself on amsart seems like a good start. Needs more tweaking from me though. My macros for the packages introduced too many spaces with \,, but those were needed in some cases. Switched to using xspace package.

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Aug 29, 2016

Contributor

I have finished a first pass at the formatting and proofreading of the text of the survey. It is still very coarse. I still need to do a second pass and add a summary in the text.

The survey for GAP is still empty. As much as I remember, it was never done formally. I see a few options:

  • ask a GAP developer to fill it now;
  • I read the recent papers describing GAP architecture and fill the survey;
  • I simply refer to the recent papers

Honestly I think option 3 is best. It won't exactly fit the format of the others, but will have the same content. What do you think?

Contributor

pdehaye commented Aug 29, 2016

I have finished a first pass at the formatting and proofreading of the text of the survey. It is still very coarse. I still need to do a second pass and add a summary in the text.

The survey for GAP is still empty. As much as I remember, it was never done formally. I see a few options:

  • ask a GAP developer to fill it now;
  • I read the recent papers describing GAP architecture and fill the survey;
  • I simply refer to the recent papers

Honestly I think option 3 is best. It won't exactly fit the format of the others, but will have the same content. What do you think?

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 29, 2016

Member

I would try for option 1. In the informal review, the reviewers made it quite clear that they did not like references to the outside too much.

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 29, 2016

I would try for option 1. In the informal review, the reviewers made it quite clear that they did not like references to the outside too much.

@tkw1536

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tkw1536

tkw1536 Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

I have written an abstract and a conclusion. Apart from one ednote I have to solve together with @florian-rabe the report is finished from my side.

Contributor

tkw1536 commented Aug 30, 2016

I have written an abstract and a conclusion. Apart from one ednote I have to solve together with @florian-rabe the report is finished from my side.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Aug 30, 2016

Member

I have reworked the intro, and Florian will be working on this today. I expect to finish my part tomorrow. We are still waiting for the contribution from @pdehaye (what have learnt from the survey).

Member

kohlhase commented Aug 30, 2016

I have reworked the intro, and Florian will be working on this today. I expect to finish my part tomorrow. We are still waiting for the contribution from @pdehaye (what have learnt from the survey).

@florian-rabe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@florian-rabe

florian-rabe Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

I've significantly revised the overall structure as well as the (new) sections 1, 3, 5.1, and 5.3.
I will still do section 5.2 but not necessarily today.

Contributor

florian-rabe commented Aug 30, 2016

I've significantly revised the overall structure as well as the (new) sections 1, 3, 5.1, and 5.3.
I will still do section 5.2 but not necessarily today.

@florian-rabe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@florian-rabe

florian-rabe Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

@Jazzpirate has added subsections 6.1 and 6.2.

Contributor

florian-rabe commented Aug 30, 2016

@Jazzpirate has added subsections 6.1 and 6.2.

@florian-rabe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@florian-rabe

florian-rabe Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

Finished 5.2 after all. Please check if what I wrote makes sense.

@Jazzpirate I left some ednotes for you in this section

Contributor

florian-rabe commented Aug 30, 2016

Finished 5.2 after all. Please check if what I wrote makes sense.

@Jazzpirate I left some ednotes for you in this section

@florian-rabe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@florian-rabe

florian-rabe Aug 30, 2016

Contributor

By the way, we should turn this deliverable into a journal paper.
Is anybody volunteering to take the lead on that?

Contributor

florian-rabe commented Aug 30, 2016

By the way, we should turn this deliverable into a journal paper.
Is anybody volunteering to take the lead on that?

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 5, 2016

Member

Software for sure.

I agree. And I have corrected this.

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 5, 2016

Software for sure.

I agree. And I have corrected this.

@florian-rabe

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@florian-rabe

florian-rabe Sep 5, 2016

Contributor

I've revised sections 1-6.

@pdehaye Section 2 is still missing.
@tkw1536 I added one ednote for you.

Contributor

florian-rabe commented Sep 5, 2016

I've revised sections 1-6.

@pdehaye Section 2 is still missing.
@tkw1536 I added one ednote for you.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 5, 2016

Member

@pdehaye Section 2 is still missing.

what is your plan there?

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 5, 2016

@pdehaye Section 2 is still missing.

what is your plan there?

@tkw1536

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@tkw1536

tkw1536 Sep 5, 2016

Contributor

@florian-rabe Added the relevant fragment of the schema theory. The text after that made sense with it in place.

Contributor

tkw1536 commented Sep 5, 2016

@florian-rabe Added the relevant fragment of the schema theory. The text after that made sense with it in place.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 5, 2016

Member

I synchronized (pull/push) with the ODK upstream.

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 5, 2016

I synchronized (pull/push) with the ODK upstream.

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Sep 7, 2016

Contributor

I will integrate the remainder tomorrow into the report.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Sep 7, 2016

I will integrate the remainder tomorrow into the report.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 9, 2016

Member

tomorrow into the report.

actually, this might take until sunday, ... (semester is starting) ...

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 9, 2016

tomorrow into the report.

actually, this might take until sunday, ... (semester is starting) ...

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

I think I am good for my part. Sorry it took so long.
I also re-read the whole thing. The most significant change I made is in adding a footnote concerning the progression of workshops. The intent there was to highlight that while many of the OpenDreamKit participants had attempted to do similar stuff in the past, what is new now is the MMT approach. I felt that was very relevant to this deliverable.
I have NOT looked at the bibliography, as I don't have it. It seems to be on a folder internal to KWARC. After delivering, this should be fixed so we can make sure to be able to recompile the deliverable just from the repo.
Let me know if there is anything else I should do.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Sep 10, 2016

I think I am good for my part. Sorry it took so long.
I also re-read the whole thing. The most significant change I made is in adding a footnote concerning the progression of workshops. The intent there was to highlight that while many of the OpenDreamKit participants had attempted to do similar stuff in the past, what is new now is the MMT approach. I felt that was very relevant to this deliverable.
I have NOT looked at the bibliography, as I don't have it. It seems to be on a folder internal to KWARC. After delivering, this should be fixed so we can make sure to be able to recompile the deliverable just from the repo.
Let me know if there is anything else I should do.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 10, 2016

Member

@pdehaye I looked over the changes, well done.
actually, I am a bit surprised that you do not have the bibliography. We made a git subrepo at ../../lib/kbibs and that should be pulled automatically for you. Could you have a look?

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 10, 2016

@pdehaye I looked over the changes, well done.
actually, I am a bit surprised that you do not have the bibliography. We made a git subrepo at ../../lib/kbibs and that should be pulled automatically for you. Could you have a look?

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

Actually, yes, I do have the bibliography. Either I missed it or I looked
before you included it?
Anyways, I have made the necessary changes now (i.e. added FindStat
reference).

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Michael Kohlhase notifications@github.com
wrote:

@pdehaye https://github.com/pdehaye I looked over the changes, well
done.
actually, I am a bit surprised that you do not have the bibliography. We
made a git subrepo at ../../lib/kbibs and that should be pulled
automatically for you. Could you have a look?


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#136 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADH2XxqaFB7fou002Cy8F7E2-knz3maDks5qolujgaJpZM4F5zNI
.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Sep 10, 2016

Actually, yes, I do have the bibliography. Either I missed it or I looked
before you included it?
Anyways, I have made the necessary changes now (i.e. added FindStat
reference).

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Michael Kohlhase notifications@github.com
wrote:

@pdehaye https://github.com/pdehaye I looked over the changes, well
done.
actually, I am a bit surprised that you do not have the bibliography. We
made a git subrepo at ../../lib/kbibs and that should be pulled
automatically for you. Could you have a look?


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#136 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADH2XxqaFB7fou002Cy8F7E2-knz3maDks5qolujgaJpZM4F5zNI
.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 10, 2016

Member

Anyways, I have made the necessary changes now

excellent. I made a first pass over explaining the "two-deliverables-in-one-report" design. I will make a first D6.3 deliverable stub now.

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 10, 2016

Anyways, I have made the necessary changes now

excellent. I made a first pass over explaining the "two-deliverables-in-one-report" design. I will make a first D6.3 deliverable stub now.

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

There is also the pesky problem of author ordering. I absolutely don't care except I want to make sure it is intentionally non alphabetical.

On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:18, Michael Kohlhase notifications@github.com wrote:

Anyways, I have made the necessary changes now

excellent. I made a first pass over explaining the "two-deliverables-in-one-report" design. I will make a first D6.3 deliverable stub now.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Sep 10, 2016

There is also the pesky problem of author ordering. I absolutely don't care except I want to make sure it is intentionally non alphabetical.

On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:18, Michael Kohlhase notifications@github.com wrote:

Anyways, I have made the necessary changes now

excellent. I made a first pass over explaining the "two-deliverables-in-one-report" design. I will make a first D6.3 deliverable stub now.


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 01:24:49AM -0700, pdehaye wrote:

There is also the pesky problem of author ordering. I absolutely don't
care except I want to make sure it is intentionally non alphabetical.

Just being curious: why not alphabetical? It's the customary way to
resolve author ordering in the math community, isn't it?

Contributor

nthiery commented Sep 10, 2016

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 01:24:49AM -0700, pdehaye wrote:

There is also the pesky problem of author ordering. I absolutely don't
care except I want to make sure it is intentionally non alphabetical.

Just being curious: why not alphabetical? It's the customary way to
resolve author ordering in the math community, isn't it?

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 10, 2016

Member

I have also not thought about it, but I will make it alphabetical. I am working on these things ATM.

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 10, 2016

I have also not thought about it, but I will make it alphabetical. I am working on these things ATM.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 10, 2016

Member

I think that the order was just that everyone just added themselves at the end, no malice or so here.
The converse would have surprised me :-) Just being curious about @pdehaye's comment.

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 10, 2016

I think that the order was just that everyone just added themselves at the end, no malice or so here.
The converse would have surprised me :-) Just being curious about @pdehaye's comment.

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

Speaking of authors: for our reports, should the authors be the people having written the report itself, or should it include those that did major work on the content? (brainstorm and implementations here, implementation elsewhere, ...). I am wondering because of other reports like D4.4 (#93), where I'll probably write the bulk of the report, while most of the implementation was done by others.

Contributor

nthiery commented Sep 10, 2016

Speaking of authors: for our reports, should the authors be the people having written the report itself, or should it include those that did major work on the content? (brainstorm and implementations here, implementation elsewhere, ...). I am wondering because of other reports like D4.4 (#93), where I'll probably write the bulk of the report, while most of the implementation was done by others.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 10, 2016

Member

I have no clear opinion on this, and I think we should have a general "rule" so I guess you (as the coordinator) should say something public about this.
I guess my personal preference to have as authors the people who wrote the report, and make the contributors clear in the report (acknowledgements?)

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 10, 2016

I have no clear opinion on this, and I think we should have a general "rule" so I guess you (as the coordinator) should say something public about this.
I guess my personal preference to have as authors the people who wrote the report, and make the contributors clear in the report (acknowledgements?)

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 10, 2016

Member

OK, I have taken care of all the ednotes. From my point of view, this deliverable is done.

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 10, 2016

OK, I have taken care of all the ednotes. From my point of view, this deliverable is done.

@fangohr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fangohr

fangohr Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

Re authors, I'd include everybody who has contributed to the task/deliverable. The report is meant to represent the work done, so it should include the people involved. (If the categories of 'author' and 'contributor' are suggested, then @kohlhase 's suggestion seems reasonable, otherwise I'd just use one category [i.e. authors or contributors], and put everybody into that.)

Contributor

fangohr commented Sep 10, 2016

Re authors, I'd include everybody who has contributed to the task/deliverable. The report is meant to represent the work done, so it should include the people involved. (If the categories of 'author' and 'contributor' are suggested, then @kohlhase 's suggestion seems reasonable, otherwise I'd just use one category [i.e. authors or contributors], and put everybody into that.)

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

re: authors, I didn't mean to imply there was malice. Apologies that it came out that way.

This is starting to look finished. There is still two ednotes in, one concerning a latex presentation bug for the listings, and one on the handling of constructors/assessors.

There is also one typo in the github issue descriptions. It should be "issue", not "issue's". I tried changing it but there seems to be two layers of Makefile's and I didn't fully understand the system used. In the end I left it as is, for @kohlhase to fix.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Sep 10, 2016

re: authors, I didn't mean to imply there was malice. Apologies that it came out that way.

This is starting to look finished. There is still two ednotes in, one concerning a latex presentation bug for the listings, and one on the handling of constructors/assessors.

There is also one typo in the github issue descriptions. It should be "issue", not "issue's". I tried changing it but there seems to be two layers of Makefile's and I didn't fully understand the system used. In the end I left it as is, for @kohlhase to fix.

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:44:30PM -0700, pdehaye wrote:

There is also one typo in the github issue descriptions. It should be
"issue", not "issue's". I tried changing it but there seems to be two
layers of Makefile's and I didn't fully understand the system used. In
the end I left it as is, for [1]@kohlhase to fix.

You just need to fix the issue description on github; I'll upload the
latest version anyway upon submitting the deliverable.

Cheers,

Nicolas

Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" nthiery@users.sf.net
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/

Contributor

nthiery commented Sep 10, 2016

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:44:30PM -0700, pdehaye wrote:

There is also one typo in the github issue descriptions. It should be
"issue", not "issue's". I tried changing it but there seems to be two
layers of Makefile's and I didn't fully understand the system used. In
the end I left it as is, for [1]@kohlhase to fix.

You just need to fix the issue description on github; I'll upload the
latest version anyway upon submitting the deliverable.

Cheers,

Nicolas

Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" nthiery@users.sf.net
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/

@pdehaye

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pdehaye

pdehaye Sep 10, 2016

Contributor

The typo is in the template that processes the GitHub issue description and
introduces it in the latex. It seems the typo originates in the Makefile
itself, but then was propagated. My sed skills are not up to par to do a
global fix: hard to the escaping correctly on s/issue's/issue/g !

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Nicolas M. Thiéry <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:44:30PM -0700, pdehaye wrote:

There is also one typo in the github issue descriptions. It should be
"issue", not "issue's". I tried changing it but there seems to be two
layers of Makefile's and I didn't fully understand the system used. In
the end I left it as is, for [1]@kohlhase to fix.

You just need to fix the issue description on github; I'll upload the
latest version anyway upon submitting the deliverable.

Cheers,

Nicolas

Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" nthiery@users.sf.net
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#136 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADH2XwONlMw68WlWdoB6kX0AqYJKcJwvks5qow6sgaJpZM4F5zNI
.

Contributor

pdehaye commented Sep 10, 2016

The typo is in the template that processes the GitHub issue description and
introduces it in the latex. It seems the typo originates in the Makefile
itself, but then was propagated. My sed skills are not up to par to do a
global fix: hard to the escaping correctly on s/issue's/issue/g !

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Nicolas M. Thiéry <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:44:30PM -0700, pdehaye wrote:

There is also one typo in the github issue descriptions. It should be
"issue", not "issue's". I tried changing it but there seems to be two
layers of Makefile's and I didn't fully understand the system used. In
the end I left it as is, for [1]@kohlhase to fix.

You just need to fix the issue description on github; I'll upload the
latest version anyway upon submitting the deliverable.

Cheers,

Nicolas

Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" nthiery@users.sf.net
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/


You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#136 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADH2XwONlMw68WlWdoB6kX0AqYJKcJwvks5qow6sgaJpZM4F5zNI
.

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Sep 11, 2016

Contributor

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 01:25:31PM -0700, pdehaye wrote:

The typo is in the template that processes the GitHub issue description
and
introduces it in the latex. It seems the typo originates in the
Makefile
itself, but then was propagated. My sed skills are not up to par to do
a
global fix: hard to the escaping correctly on s/issue's/issue/g !

Oh, I see. I fixed the Makefile. This will propagate automatically
next time I'll refetch the issue description and rebuild the reports.

Thanks for spotting this!

Contributor

nthiery commented Sep 11, 2016

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 01:25:31PM -0700, pdehaye wrote:

The typo is in the template that processes the GitHub issue description
and
introduces it in the latex. It seems the typo originates in the
Makefile
itself, but then was propagated. My sed skills are not up to par to do
a
global fix: hard to the escaping correctly on s/issue's/issue/g !

Oh, I see. I fixed the Makefile. This will propagate automatically
next time I'll refetch the issue description and rebuild the reports.

Thanks for spotting this!

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 11, 2016

Member

There is still two ednotes in, one concerning a latex presentation bug for the listings, and one on the handling of constructors/assessors.

these two are mostly for the journal version, we want to eventually make from this report. I have hidden them.

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 11, 2016

There is still two ednotes in, one concerning a latex presentation bug for the listings, and one on the handling of constructors/assessors.

these two are mostly for the journal version, we want to eventually make from this report. I have hidden them.

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Sep 11, 2016

Contributor

Thanks for the feedback on authorship. I added the following to our README:
``Defining authorship is tricky, as most deliverable involve close collaboration with the community, and the report is often written by a subset of the contributors. Let's use the following simple rule of thumb: the authors of the report should include all persons funded by ODK that contributed non trivially. Not including outsiders in the author list is reasonable, as the report is about the contribution of ODK.''

Contributor

nthiery commented Sep 11, 2016

Thanks for the feedback on authorship. I added the following to our README:
``Defining authorship is tricky, as most deliverable involve close collaboration with the community, and the report is often written by a subset of the contributors. Let's use the following simple rule of thumb: the authors of the report should include all persons funded by ODK that contributed non trivially. Not including outsiders in the author list is reasonable, as the report is about the contribution of ODK.''

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Sep 11, 2016

Contributor

We probably want something stronger than "non trivially".

Contributor

nthiery commented Sep 11, 2016

We probably want something stronger than "non trivially".

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Sep 19, 2016

Contributor

I did some little finalization on the report: moving the abstract to the github description, reusing the same story as for D6.3, adding a link to the report, ...
There just remains to possibly update the author list according to what we discussed above (who is considered as having worked on this deliverable). Then it's ready to submit.

Contributor

nthiery commented Sep 19, 2016

I did some little finalization on the report: moving the abstract to the github description, reusing the same story as for D6.3, adding a link to the report, ...
There just remains to possibly update the author list according to what we discussed above (who is considered as having worked on this deliverable). Then it's ready to submit.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Sep 20, 2016

Member

I have updated the authors.

Member

kohlhase commented Sep 20, 2016

I have updated the authors.

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Sep 20, 2016

Contributor

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:55:20PM -0700, Michael Kohlhase wrote:

I have updated the authors.

Thanks! pdf updated for D6.2 and D6.3.

Contributor

nthiery commented Sep 20, 2016

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:55:20PM -0700, Michael Kohlhase wrote:

I have updated the authors.

Thanks! pdf updated for D6.2 and D6.3.

@bpilorget

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bpilorget

bpilorget Oct 24, 2016

Contributor

Deliverables update

@kohlhase As you know , during the interim review in Bremen, reviewers gave advice to improve deliverables. UPSud tried to follow their advice by updating D5.1 #107
The main critic is that deliverables should be static document. Therefore we went through the #107 report to check if all links were still working and also if the information contained on the links was necessary for the understanding of the report.
As a result when it was necessary annexes were added to the #107 report.

Can you please do the same for this deliverable and add annexes when need be?

Contributor

bpilorget commented Oct 24, 2016

Deliverables update

@kohlhase As you know , during the interim review in Bremen, reviewers gave advice to improve deliverables. UPSud tried to follow their advice by updating D5.1 #107
The main critic is that deliverables should be static document. Therefore we went through the #107 report to check if all links were still working and also if the information contained on the links was necessary for the understanding of the report.
As a result when it was necessary annexes were added to the #107 report.

Can you please do the same for this deliverable and add annexes when need be?

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Jan 5, 2017

Contributor

Report finally submitted to the EU portal. I fixed the SageMath figures (there was a bug last june which caused duplicate categories to be exported). I also fixed undefined WP links.

Contributor

nthiery commented Jan 5, 2017

Report finally submitted to the EU portal. I fixed the SageMath figures (there was a bug last june which caused duplicate categories to be exported). I also fixed undefined WP links.

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Jan 5, 2017

Contributor

@kohlhase: I made a small edit to eudeliverablereport.cls to reimplement WPref and add longWPref to link to the relevant githup page (rather than attempting an internal link in the PDF as in the proposal file).

Btw: the current implementations of taskref, longref, WPref in eudeliverablereport.cls are ODK specific; maybe we should move them to our own deliverablereport.cls, or find a way to abstract away the web addresses.

Contributor

nthiery commented Jan 5, 2017

@kohlhase: I made a small edit to eudeliverablereport.cls to reimplement WPref and add longWPref to link to the relevant githup page (rather than attempting an internal link in the PDF as in the proposal file).

Btw: the current implementations of taskref, longref, WPref in eudeliverablereport.cls are ODK specific; maybe we should move them to our own deliverablereport.cls, or find a way to abstract away the web addresses.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Jan 5, 2017

Member

Btw: the current implementations of taskref, longref, WPref in eudeliverablereport.cls are ODK specific; maybe we should move them to our own deliverablereport.cls, or find a way to abstract away the web addresses.

I think we (I actually) should make the git issues generation a regular feature of the proposal class. Then we can have a macro \prop@gitissues (or so; maybe make this a key in the \begin{proposal}) and use your definition if that exists. Otherwise we could just reference the proposal generating something like WP 6.2 in \cite{proposal}. What do you think? Then we could commit this back into LaTeX-proposal.

Member

kohlhase commented Jan 5, 2017

Btw: the current implementations of taskref, longref, WPref in eudeliverablereport.cls are ODK specific; maybe we should move them to our own deliverablereport.cls, or find a way to abstract away the web addresses.

I think we (I actually) should make the git issues generation a regular feature of the proposal class. Then we can have a macro \prop@gitissues (or so; maybe make this a key in the \begin{proposal}) and use your definition if that exists. Otherwise we could just reference the proposal generating something like WP 6.2 in \cite{proposal}. What do you think? Then we could commit this back into LaTeX-proposal.

@kohlhase

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@kohlhase

kohlhase Jan 5, 2017

Member

I made a small edit to eudeliverablereport.cls to reimplement

@bpilorget do we need to resubmit to the EU here?

Member

kohlhase commented Jan 5, 2017

I made a small edit to eudeliverablereport.cls to reimplement

@bpilorget do we need to resubmit to the EU here?

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Jan 5, 2017

Contributor

The version I submitted today to the EU portal uses the latest style file; so we are good.

Contributor

nthiery commented Jan 5, 2017

The version I submitted today to the EU portal uses the latest style file; so we are good.

@nthiery nthiery closed this Jan 5, 2017

@nthiery

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@nthiery

nthiery Jan 5, 2017

Contributor

I think we (I actually) should make the git issues generation a regular feature of the proposal class.

Sounds good indeed!

Then we can have a macro \prop@gitissues (or so; maybe make this a key in the \begin{proposal}) and use your definition if that exists. Otherwise we could just reference the proposal generating something like WP 6.2 in \cite{proposal}. What do you think? Then we could commit this back into LaTeX-proposal.

I imagine that the typical reader will be more interested in accessing the actual WP description rather than tracking provenance information. So I'd say a direct link sounds better than a citation. Also web pages tend to be easier to navigate than a pdf file, which promotes linking to the page rather than the pdf.

Just 2 cents though ...

Contributor

nthiery commented Jan 5, 2017

I think we (I actually) should make the git issues generation a regular feature of the proposal class.

Sounds good indeed!

Then we can have a macro \prop@gitissues (or so; maybe make this a key in the \begin{proposal}) and use your definition if that exists. Otherwise we could just reference the proposal generating something like WP 6.2 in \cite{proposal}. What do you think? Then we could commit this back into LaTeX-proposal.

I imagine that the typical reader will be more interested in accessing the actual WP description rather than tracking provenance information. So I'd say a direct link sounds better than a citation. Also web pages tend to be easier to navigate than a pdf file, which promotes linking to the page rather than the pdf.

Just 2 cents though ...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment