[Axiom-developer] Re: Why did Axiom fail in the 1990s?

[C Y]

--- William Sit <address@hidden> wrote:

> C Y wrote (Re: Paper usage policy (for authors)):
> > 
> > Whether pamphlets qualify is probably a question for a lawyer.
> > 
> > I'm assuming anyone other than the original author has no special
> > rights period.
> 
> Question for a lawyer means question for the courts?

I meant it's a question for someone familiar with the actual laws on
the books which would pertain to this type of agreement.  I am not
personally familiar with them

> If the authors have the "residual" rights as you mentioned,
> wouldn't it be logical that the authors can assign such
> "residual" rights to another entity?

It probably depends on the wording of the actual signed agreement. 
Perhaps the rights retained by the author are non-transferable - it
would most likely depend.

> Writing new material in survey form is certainly alright
> (this already is a huge undertaking and will require
> constant updating), especially if no literate articles are
> available.

I also think it is a good fit to what Axiom actually needs - pamphlets
covering already well established areas should include the best points
from all available research.

> But overviews and surveys, such as at Wikipedia
> or Mathematica sites are, I'm afraid, not what Tim has in
> mind. He wants lock, stock, and barrel (all the shebang) *in
> one pamphlet* so that one need not hunt for obscure outside
> articles or be an expert in the field to follow, maintain
> and improve the code.

The point about hunting for obscure articles, I agree - if there is
knowledge contained in that article relevant to the pamphlet, it should
be in there - many people simply will not be able to locate that
article.  As much as is reasonably possible an introduction should be
provided, but there are limits - the art is finding the correct ones.

> (That's why the COMBINAT code does not
> yet pass muster.) That, I think, is kind of an oxymoron and
> unattainable ideal (try reading any new algorithm in
> symbolic computation and it is an infinite descent if you
> are not already an expert *in the particular problem the
> algorithm solves.* COMBINAT comes to mind.)

The way to handle this, in my estimation, is to have the "basic"
pamphlet in the subject provide the introduction and have subsequent
pamphlets build on it.  I don't think every pamphlet should have all
introductory material, but there should be a "basics" pamphlet that
both lays out the basics of the subject in Axiom and introduces them to
the developer.  Units and Dimensions is intended to (eventually) serve
this purpose for that subfield - new algorithms in dimensional analysis
would reference the basic Units and Dimensions framework and build from
it.

> Every pamphlet
> would eventually be a pretty thick book, even if there are
> plenty of literature covering the topic (nothing
> fundamentally wrong with that except for lack of
> author-power and stretching the 30 year horizon).

Indeed, even 30 years may not be enough to do this as it should be
done.  However, I don't see that as a reason not to try - if the
foundation is strong enough it's worth the time and effort.

> Perhaps
> Gaby's "incremental improvement" idea may work better, but
> that is exactly what we have been debating about. I prefer
> Ralf's pragmatic approach: get the code working and
> stablized, add documentation at places where users or
> developers find it lacking in details (that is, let
> documentation be "demand driven" rather than "supply
> driven"). 

I don't see any reason people can't work from "both ends" and meet "in
the middle", so to speak.

In my particular case, the effort required to go from where I am now to
a position where I would regard myself able to make non-trivial algebra
contributions takes me through a lot of areas that may not have a lot
of immediate user demand but I think are worth paying attention to. 
But that's just me.

> I agree with the goal, just not the means. Moreover, for
> that vision to be realized, the prerequisite is a very large
> user base.

Right.  So we have a bit of a chicken-egg problem, in two ways - to get
a user base we need a working program, but to attract users away from
current systems (already very good) we must offer something compelling
enough to warrant the switch.  So we must be working soon, but we must
also be designing for the long term.  Two goals, with (IMHO) two
different approaches needed.

> Next question: what can we do to increase user base? (Let's
> hear yours.)

My suggestions?  The only thoughts I have on the subject are that we
must offer something compelling enough and unique enough that people
are drawn to Axiom from other, working systems.  The only feature I see
that I would estimate desirable enough to accomplish this is formal
proof logic trust integrated with CAS results.  (I.e. the hard road.)

Obviously, we might implement field specific packages (e.g. Feyncalc)
that would appeal to specific problem domains, but we need to first
convince everyone to trust the results.
  
> > I think the Axiom project might be a bit like the Free Software
> > Foundation in that respect - to me at least it's about more than
> > just a working CAS.  It's about changing the landscape itself.
> > Not replacing the academic institutions and their work as they
> > exist today, but making them more visible and more readily 
> > applicable to the rest of the world.  That's a more ambitious 
> > project than just a working CAS, but
> > the potential rewards are even greater.
> 
> Great vision! Would you outline some plans and actions?

Well, thoughts anyway:

1.  Implement a framework flexible enough and powerful enough to enable
most features expected of a modern CAS and support interaction with
formal proof assistants.

2.  Build (or re-build) Axiom's Algebra based upon modern Category
Theory.  I think we are close, but we should make things feel as
natural as possible to a mathematician (who are the ones we are hoping
will extend the system in the end, after all.)

3.  Reproduce several known results of famous problems inside the CAS
itself, demonstrating its power on known, verifiable problems.

4.  Tackle new problems, looking for solutions to as yet unsolved but
interesting problems.  Use the effort to refine the tools in the CAS
for solving such problems.

5.  Once #4 begins to show results that are significant to the
mathematical community, attention should begin to shift towards Axiom
in a positive way as a tool for new research work.  As that happens,
the Axiom Journal can begin to organize as a serious publication.

Essentially, it's up to us to make our case.  If we can demonstrate
with real results that Axiom is a uniquely effective tool for new work,
that will be the most powerful possible tool to drive its use.

> (I share with you that the journal and publishers in the math
> and cs areas at least are exploiting academics: authors and
> researchers do all the work (writing, reviewing, editing,
> proofreading) and get *nothing* other than a bibliography
> item.)

I hear periodic rumblings about this from the scientific community, but
I'm not sure about mathematics per say.

> Note that the building of superhighways was historically
> demand-driven (national security, commerce, mobility, and
> lots of drivers).

Correct - so if we can demonstrate with some non-trivial examples the
practicality of the superhighway, we may begin to get a lot more people
interested.  (Hence the need for good tools - e.g. a car that performs
better than a horse.)

Cheers,
CY


       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222