Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

D4.2: Active/Structured Documents Requirements and existing Solutions #91

Closed
minrk opened this issue Sep 8, 2015 · 17 comments
Closed

D4.2: Active/Structured Documents Requirements and existing Solutions #91

minrk opened this issue Sep 8, 2015 · 17 comments

Comments

@minrk
Copy link
Contributor

@minrk minrk commented Sep 8, 2015

One of the most prominent features of a virtual research environment (VRE) is a unified user interface. The OpenDreamKit approach is to create a mathematical VRE by integrating various pre-existing mathematical software systems. There are two approaches that can serve as a basis for the OpenDreamKit UI: computational notebooks and active documents. The former allow mathematical text around the computation cells of a real-eval-print loop of a mathematical software system and the latter make semantically annotated documents active.

We report on two systems in the OpenDreamKit project: Jupyter -- a notebook server for various kernels, and MathHub.info -- a platform for active mathematical documents. We identify commonalities and differences and develop a vision for integrating their functionalities.

Related projects:

cc: @fcayre, @nthiery, @fangohr, @marcinofulus, @rbeezer

@minrk minrk added this to the D4.2 milestone Sep 8, 2015
@nthiery nthiery mentioned this issue Sep 11, 2015
3 of 3 tasks complete
@minrk minrk self-assigned this Nov 3, 2015
@kohlhase
Copy link
Member

@kohlhase kohlhase commented Mar 4, 2016

We have asked for an extension for this deliverable and as far as I understand we have until the review meeting in June. I have hired a student who will prepare the survey part of this and I will get this done.
We are still finding out where to best develop it.

I am leaning towards a public repository on http://gl.kwarc.info (and give anyone who wants write access) and then move it to the WP4 repos when it is done enough from my PoV.

@kohlhase
Copy link
Member

@kohlhase kohlhase commented Mar 4, 2016

I just went ahead and made https://gl.kwarc.info/ODK/D4.2 and we are going to run with that for a while.

@minrk
Copy link
Contributor Author

@minrk minrk commented Mar 4, 2016

Great, thanks!

@AlexMaiereanu
Copy link

@AlexMaiereanu AlexMaiereanu commented Mar 16, 2016

Hello!

I am the student in charge of the survey part. Now I am documenting about this issue and right after I will begin to post any material that I make.

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

@nthiery nthiery commented Mar 16, 2016

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:36:07AM -0700, AlexMaiereanu wrote:

I am the student in charge of the survey part. Now I documenting about
this issue and right after I will begin to post any material that I
make.

Welcome on board, and thanks in advance for the hard work!

            Nicolas
@nthiery nthiery assigned kohlhase and unassigned minrk Mar 22, 2016
@nthiery nthiery modified the milestones: First informal review, D4.2 Mar 22, 2016
@kohlhase
Copy link
Member

@kohlhase kohlhase commented Jun 12, 2016

am very sorry to be late on this. I have just committed a draft to WP4/D4.2. I have promised Nicolas to submit to him tomorrow night. Therefore I would be interested in quick feedback on this. Sections 1,2,3 are just rehashing of known stuff (Active Documents and Jupyter). Section 4. is a proposal for a synthesis. I would really like your feedback on this.
In my presentation I would concentrate on the synthesis proposal.
@nthiery is the level of coverage OK in this way?
@nthiery,@minrk we may want to discuss this proposal in more detail in a joint session between the WP4 and WP6 workshops in Bremen (are you coming?).

@minrk
Copy link
Contributor Author

@minrk minrk commented Jun 12, 2016

@kohlhase
Copy link
Member

@kohlhase kohlhase commented Jun 14, 2016

I have committed this deliverable report to this repository and notified Nicolas and Benoit that it is ready.

@kohlhase kohlhase closed this Jun 14, 2016
@nthiery nthiery reopened this Jun 16, 2016
@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

@nthiery nthiery commented Jun 16, 2016

Hi Michael,
Same comments as for #133. Thanks a lot!

@kohlhase
Copy link
Member

@kohlhase kohlhase commented Jun 23, 2016

@nthiery, why did you reopen?

@bryonglodencissp
Copy link

@bryonglodencissp bryonglodencissp commented Jun 23, 2016

@nthiery, yup

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

@nthiery nthiery commented Jun 27, 2016

Report submitted to EU

@nthiery nthiery closed this Jun 27, 2016
@bpilorget
Copy link
Contributor

@bpilorget bpilorget commented Oct 24, 2016

Deliverable updates

@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
Copy link
Contributor

@nthiery nthiery commented Jan 4, 2017

Hi @kohlhase,
I am finally in the process of resubmitting the deliverables. I have fixed two typos in the report. There is one undefined reference (fig:web, in ActiveDocumentsOverview.tex). Could you double check on this, and use the occasion to double check the external links as mentionned above?
Thanks!

@kohlhase
Copy link
Member

@kohlhase kohlhase commented Jan 9, 2017

I have fixed the references (multiple and undefined).

I am a bit confused, I saw that the report did not have a githubissuedescription so I added that in the process I looked at D4.1 D5.1 and they only consist of the issue description (no content) is that intentional?

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

@nthiery nthiery commented Jan 9, 2017

@nthiery
Copy link
Contributor

@nthiery nthiery commented Jan 9, 2017

Resubmitted on the EU portal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.