1 files changed, 471 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/rfc/rfc1019.txt b/doc/rfc/rfc1019.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8beb080
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/rfc/rfc1019.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,471 @@
+
+
+Network Working Group                                           D. Arnon
+Request for Comments: 1019                                    Xerox PARC
+                                                          September 1987
+
+
+
+  Report of the Workshop on Environments for Computational Mathematics
+                                July 30, 1987
+                          ACM SIGGRAPH Conference
+              Anaheim Convention Center, Anaheim, California
+
+
+Status of This Memo
+
+   This memo is a report on the discussion of the representation of
+   equations in a workshop at the ACM SIGGRAPH Conference held in
+   Anaheim, California on 30 July 1987.  Distribution of this memo is
+   unlimited.
+
+Introduction
+
+   Since the 1950's, many researchers have worked to realize the vision
+   of natural and powerful computer systems for interactive mathematical
+   work.  Nowadays this vision can be expressed as the goal of an
+   integrated system for symbolic, numerical, graphical, and
+   documentational mathematical work.  Recently the development of
+   personal computers (with high resolution screens, window systems, and
+   mice), high-speed networks, electronic mail, and electronic
+   publishing, have created a technological base that is more than
+   adequate for the realization of such systems.  However, the growth of
+   separate Mathematical Typesetting, Multimedia Electronic Mail,
+   Numerical Computation, and Computer Algebra communities, each with
+   its own conventions, threatens to prevent these systems from being
+   built.
+
+   To be specific, little thought has been given to unifying the
+   different expression representations currently used in the different
+   communities.  This must take place if there is to be interchange of
+   mathematical expressions among Document, Display, and Computation
+   systems. Also, tools that are wanted in several communities (e.g.,
+   WYSIWYG mathematical expression editors), are being built
+   independently by each, with little awareness of the duplication of
+   effort that thereby occurs.  Worst of all, the ample opportunities
+   for cross-fertilization among the different communities are not being
+   exploited.  For example, some Computer Algebra systems explicitly
+   associate a type with a mathematical expression (e.g.,   3 x 3 matrix
+   of polynomials with complex number coefficients), which could enable
+   automated math proofreaders, analogous to spelling checkers.
+
+   The goal of the Workshop on Environments for Computational
+   Mathematics was to open a dialogue among representatives of the
+
+
+
+Arnon                                                           [Page 1]
+
+RFC 1019                                                  September 1987
+
+
+   Computer Algebra, Numerical Computation, Multimedia Electronic Mail,
+   and Mathematical Typesetting communities.  In July 1986, during the
+   Computers and Mathematics Conference at Stanford University, a subset
+   of this year's participants met at Xerox PARC to discuss User
+   Interfaces for Computer Algebra Systems.  This group agreed to hold
+   future meetings, of which the present Workshop is the first.  Alan
+   Katz's recent essay, "Issues in Defining an Equations Representation
+   Standard", RFC-1003, DDN Network Information Center, March 1987
+   (reprinted in the ACM SIGSAM Bulletin May 1987, pp. 19-24),
+   influenced the discussion at the Workshop, especially since it
+   discusses the interchange of mathematical expressions.
+
+   This report does not aim to be a transcript of the Workshop, but
+   rather tries to extract the major points upon which (in the Editor's
+   view) rough consensus was reached.  It is the Editor's view that the
+   Workshop discussion can be summarized in the form of a basic
+   architecture for "Standard Mathematical Systems", presented in
+   Section II below.  Meeting participants seemed to agree that: (1)
+   existing mathematical systems should be augmented or modified to
+   conform to this architecture, and (2) future systems should be built
+   in accordance with it.
+
+   The Talks and Panel-Audience discussions at the Workshop were
+   videotaped.  Currently, these tapes are being edited for submission
+   to the SIGGRAPH Video Review, to form a "Video Proceedings".  If
+   accepted by SIGGRAPH, the Video Proceedings will be publicly
+   available for a nominal distribution charge.
+
+   One aspect of the mathematical systems vision that we explicitly left
+   out of this Workshop is the question of "intelligence" in
+   mathematical systems.  This has been a powerful motivation to systems
+   builders since the early days.  Despite its importance, we do not
+   expect intelligent behavior in mathematical systems to be realized in
+   the short term, and so we leave it aside.  Computer Assisted
+   Instruction for mathematics also lies beyond the scope of the
+   Workshop.  And although it might have been appropriate to invite
+   representatives of the Spreadsheets and Graphics communities, we did
+   not.  Many of those who were at the Workshop have given considerable
+   thought to Spreadsheets and Graphics in mathematical systems.
+
+   Financial support from the Xerox Corporation for AudioVisual
+   equipment rental at SIGGRAPH is gratefully acknowledged.  Thanks are
+   due to Kevin McIsaac for serving as chief cameraman, providing
+   critical comments on this report, and contributing in diverse other
+   ways to the Workshop.  Thanks also to Richard Fateman, Michael
+   Spivak, and Neil Soiffer for critical comments on this report.
+   Subhana Menis and Erin Foley have helped with logistics and
+   documentation at several points along the way.
+
+   Information on the Video Proceedings, and any other aspect of the
+   Workshop can be obtained from the author of this report.
+
+
+
+Arnon                                                           [Page 2]
+
+RFC 1019                                                  September 1987
+
+
+I. Particulars of the meeting
+
+   The Workshop had four parts: (1) Talks, (2) Panel Discussion, (3)
+   Panel and Audience discussion, (4) and Live demos.  Only a few of the
+   systems presented in the talks were demonstrated live. However, many
+   of the talks contained videotapes of the systems being discussed.
+
+   The talks, each 15 minutes in length, were:
+
+   1. "The MathCad System: a Graphical Interface for Computer
+      Mathematics", Richard Smaby, MathSOFT Inc.
+
+   2. "MATLAB - an Interactive Matrix Laboratory", Cleve Moler,
+      MathWorks Inc.
+
+   3. "Milo: A Macintosh System for Students", Ron Avitzur, Free Lance
+      Developer, Palo Alto, CA.
+
+   4. "MathScribe: A User Interface for Computer Algebra systems", Neil
+      Soiffer, Tektronix Labs.
+
+   5. "INFOR: an Interactive WYSIWYG System for Technical Text",
+      William Schelter, University of Texas.
+
+   6. "Iris User Interface for Computer Algebra Systems", Benton Leong,
+      University of Waterloo.
+
+   7. "CaminoReal: A Direct Manipulation Style User Interface for
+      Mathematical Software", Dennis Arnon, Xerox PARC.
+
+   8. "Domain-Driven Expression Display in Scratchpad II", Stephen
+      Watt, IBM Yorktown Heights.
+
+   9. "Internal and External Representations of Valid Mathematical
+      Reasoning", Tryg Ager, Stanford University.
+
+   10. "Presentation and Interchange of Mathematical Expressions in the
+       Andrew System", Maria Wadlow, Carnegie-Mellon University.
+
+   The Panel discussion lasted 45 minutes.  The panelists were:
+
+      Richard Fateman, University of California at Berkeley
+      Richard Jenks, IBM Yorktown Heights
+      Michael Spivak, Personal TeX
+      Ronald Whitney, American Mathematical Society
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Arnon                                                           [Page 3]
+
+RFC 1019                                                  September 1987
+
+
+   The panelists were asked to consider the following issues in planning
+   their presentations:
+
+   1. Should we try to build integrated documentation/computation
+      systems?
+
+   2. WYSIWYG editing of mathematical expressions.
+
+   3. Interchange representation of mathematics.
+
+   4. User interface design for integrated documentation/computation
+      systems.
+
+   5. Coping with large mathematical expressions.
+
+   A Panel-Audience discussion lasted another 45 minutes, and the Demos
+   lasted about one hour.
+
+   Other Workshop participants, besides those named above, included:
+
+      S. Kamal Abdali, Tektronix Labs
+      George Allen, Design Science
+      Alan Katz, Information Sciences Institute
+      J. Robert Cooke, Cornell University and Cooke Publications
+      Larry Lesser, Inference Corporation
+      Tom Libert, University of Michigan
+      Kevin McIsaac, Xerox PARC and University of Western Australia
+      Elizabeth Ralston, Inference Corporation
+
+II. Standard Mathematical Systems - a Proposed Architecture
+
+   We postulate that there is an "Abstract Syntax" for any mathematical
+   expression.  A piece of Abstract Syntax consists of an Operator and
+   an (ordered) list of Arguments, where each Argument is (recursively)
+   a piece of Abstract Syntax.  Functional Notation, Lisp SExpressions,
+   Directed Acyclic Graphs, and N-ary Trees are equivalent
+   representations of Abstract Syntax, in the sense of being equally
+   expressive, although one or another might be considered preferable
+   from the standpoint of computation and algorithms.  For example, the
+   functional expression "Plus[Times[a,b],c]" represents the Abstract
+   Syntax of an expression that would commonly be written "a*b+c".
+
+   A "Standard Mathematical Component" (abbreviated SMC) is a collection
+   of software and hardware modules, with a single function, which if it
+   reads mathematical expressions, reads them as Abstract Syntax, and if
+   it writes mathematical expressions, writes them as Abstract Syntax.
+   A "Standard Mathematical System" (abbreviated SMS) is a collection of
+   SMC's which are used together, and which communicate with each other
+   in Abstract Syntax.
+
+   We identify at least four possible types of components in an SMS.
+
+
+
+Arnon                                                           [Page 4]
+
+RFC 1019                                                  September 1987
+
+
+   Any particular SMS may have zero, one, or several instances of each
+   component type.  The connection between two particular components of
+   an SMS, of whatever type, is via Abstract Syntax passed over a "wire"
+   joining them.
+
+   1) EDs - Math Editors
+
+   These edit Abstract Syntax to Abstract Syntax.  A particular system
+   may have editors that work on some other representations of
+   mathematics (e.g., bitmaps, or particular formatting languages),
+   however they do not qualify as an ED components of a SMS.  An ED may
+   be WYSIWYG or language-oriented.
+
+   2) DISPs - Math Displayers
+
+   These are suites of software packages, device drivers, and hardware
+   devices that take in an expr in Abstract Syntax and render it. For
+   example, (1) the combination of an Abstract Syntax->TeX translator,
+   TeX itself, and a printer, or (2) a plotting package plus a plotting
+   device.  A DISP component may or may not support "pointing" (i.e.,
+   selection), within an expression it has displayed, fix a printer
+   probably doesn't, but terminal screen may. If pointing is supported,
+   then a DISP component must be able to pass back the selected
+   subexpression(s) in Abstract Syntax. We are not attempting here to
+   foresee, or limit, the selection mechanisms that different DISPs may
+   offer, but only to require that a DISP be able to communicate its
+   selections in Abstract Syntax.
+
+   3) COMPs - Computation systems
+
+   Examples are Numerical Libraries and Computer Algebra systems. There
+   are questions as to the state of a COMP component at the time it
+   receives an expression. For example, what global flags are set, or
+   what previous expressions have been computed that the current
+   expression may refer to.  However, we don't delve into these hard
+   issues at this time.
+
+   4) DOCs - Document systems
+
+   These are what would typically called "text editors", "document
+   editors", or "electronic mail systems".  We are interested in their
+   handling of math expressions.  In reality, they manage other document
+   constituents as well (e.g., text and graphics).  The design of the
+   user interface for the interaction of math, text, and graphics is a
+   nontrivial problem, and will doubtless be the subject of further
+   research.
+
+   A typical SMS will have an ED and a DISP that are much more closely
+   coupled than is suggested here.  For example, the ED's internal
+   representation of Abstract Syntax, and the DISP's internal
+   representation (e.g., a tree of boxes), may have pointers back and
+
+
+
+Arnon                                                           [Page 5]
+
+RFC 1019                                                  September 1987
+
+
+   forth, or perhaps may even share a common data structure.  This is
+   acceptable, but it should always be possible to access the two
+   components in the canonical, decoupled way.  For example, the ED
+   should be able to receive a standard Abstract Syntax representation
+   for an expression, plus an editing command in Abstract Syntax (e.g.,
+   Edit[expr, cmd]), and return an Abstract Syntax representation for
+   the result.  Similarly, the DISP should be able to receive Abstract
+   Syntax over the wire and display it, and if it supports pointing, be
+   able to return selected subexpressions in Abstract Syntax.
+
+   The boundaries between the component types are not hard and fast. For
+   example, an ED might support simple computations (e.g.,
+   simplification, rearrangement of subexpressions, arithmetic), or a
+   DOC might contain a facility for displaying mathematical expressions.
+   The key thing for a given module to qualify as an SMC is its ability
+   to read and write Abstract Syntax.
+
+III. Recommendations and Qualifications
+
+    1. It is our hypothesis that it will be feasible to encode a rich
+       variety of other languages in Abstract Syntax, for example,
+       programming constructs.  Thus we intend it to be possible to
+       pass such things as Lisp formatting programs, plot programs,
+       TeX macros, etc. over the wire in Abstract Syntax.  We also
+       hypothesize that it will be possible to encode all present and
+       future mathematical notations in Abstract Syntax (e.g.,
+       commutative diagrams in two or three dimensions).  For
+       example, the 3 x 3 identify matrix might be encoded as:
+
+       Matrix[ [1,0,0], [0,1,0], [0,0,1] ]
+
+       while the Abstract Syntax expression:
+
+       Matrix[5, 5, DiagonalRow[1, ThreeDots[], 1],
+       BelowDiagonalTriangle[FlexZero[]],
+       AboveDiagonalTriangle[FlexZero[]]]
+
+       might encode a 5 x 5 matrix which is to be displayed with a
+       "1" in the (1,1) position, a "1" in the (5,5) position, three
+       dots between them on the diagonal, a big fat zero in the lower
+       triangle indicating the presence of zeros there, and a big fat
+       zero in the upper triangle indicating zeros.
+
+    2. We assume the use of the ASCII character set for Abstract Syntax
+       expressions.  Greek letters, for example, would need to be
+       encoded with expressions like Greek[alpha], or Alpha[].
+       Similarly, font encoding is achieved by the use of Abstract
+       Syntax such as the following for 12pt bold Times Roman:
+       Font[timesRoman, 12, bold, <expression>] Two SMCs are free to
+       communicate in a larger character set, or pass font
+       specifications in other ways, but they should always be able to
+
+
+
+Arnon                                                           [Page 6]
+
+RFC 1019                                                  September 1987
+
+
+       express themselves in standard Abstract Syntax.
+
+    3. COMPs (e.g., Computer Algebra systems), should be able to
+       communicate in Abstract Syntax.  Existing systems should
+       have translators to/from Abstract Syntax added to them.  In
+       addition, if we can establish a collection of standard names and
+       argument lists for common functions, and get all COMP's to read
+       and write them, then any Computer Algebra system will be able to
+       talk to any other.  Some examples of possible standard names and
+       argument lists for common functions:
+
+   Plus[a,b,...]
+   Minus[a]
+   Minus[a,b]
+   Times[a,b,...]
+   Divide[<numerator>, <denominator>]
+   Power[<base>, <exponent>]
+   PartialDerivative[<expr>, <var>]
+   Integral[<expr>, <var>, <lowerLimit>,<upperLimit>] (limits optional)
+   Summation[<<summand>, <lowerLimit>, <upperLimit>] (limits optional)
+
+      A particular algebra system may read and write nonstandard
+      Abstract Syntax.  For example:
+
+   Polynomial[Variables[x, y, z], List[Term[coeff, xExp, yExp, zExp],
+   ...
+
+      but, it should be able to translate this to an equivalent standard
+      representation. For example:
+
+   Plus[Times[coeff, Power[x, xExp], ...
+
+    4. A DOC must store the Abstract Syntax representations of the
+       expressions it contains.  Thus it's easy for it to pass its
+       expressions to EDs, COMPs, or DISPs.  A DOC is free to store
+       additional expression representations. For example, a tree of
+       Boxes, a bitmap, or a TeX description.
+
+    5. DISPs will typically have local databases of formatting
+       information.  To actually render the Abstract Syntax, the DISP
+       checks for display rules in its database.  If none are found,
+       it paints the Abstract Syntax in some standard way.  Local
+       formatting databases can be overridden by formatting rules passed
+       over the wire, expressed in Abstract Syntax.  It is formatting
+       databases that store knowledge of particular display
+       environments (for e.g., "typesetting for Journal X").
+
+       The paradigm we wish to follow is that of the genetic code: A
+       mathematical expression is like a particular instance of DNA, and
+       upon receiving it a DISP consults the appropriate formatting
+       database to see if it understands it.  If not, the DISP just
+
+
+
+Arnon                                                           [Page 7]
+
+RFC 1019                                                  September 1987
+
+
+       "passed it through unchanged".  The expression sent over the wire
+       may be accompanied by directives or explanatory information,
+       which again may or may not be meaningful to a particular DISP.  In
+       reality, formatting databases may need to contain Expert
+       System-level sophistication to be able to produce professional
+       quality typesetting results, but we believe that useful results
+       can be achieved even without such sophistication.
+
+    6. With the use of the SMC's specified above, it becomes easy to use
+       any DOC as a logging facility for a session with a COMP.  Therefore,
+       improvements in DOCs (e.g., browsers, level structuring, active
+       documents, audit trails), will automatically give us better
+       logging mechanisms for sessions with algebra systems.
+
+    7. Note that Abstract Syntax is human-readable.  Thus any text
+       editor can be used as an ED.  Of course, in a typical SMS, users
+       should have no need to look at the Abstract Syntax flowing
+       through the internal "wires" if they don't care to.  Many will
+       want to interact only with mathematics that has a textbook-like
+       appearance, and they should be able to do so.
+
+    8. Alan Katz's RFC (cited above) distinguishes the form (i.e.,
+       appearance) of a mathematical expression from its content (i.e.,
+       meaning, value).  We do not agree that such a distinction can be
+       made.  We claim that Abstract Syntax can convey form, meaning,
+       or both, and that its interpretation is strictly in the eye
+       of the beholder(s).  Meaning is just a handshake between sender
+       and recipient.
+
+    9. Help and status queries, the replies to help and status queries,
+       and error messages should be read and written by SMC's in
+       Abstract Syntax.
+
+   10. In general, it is permissible for two SMC's to use private
+       protocols for communication.  Our example of a tightly coupled ED
+       and DISP above is one example.  Two instances of a Macsyma COMP
+       would be another; they might agree to pass Macsyma internal
+       representations back and forth.  To qualify as SMC's, however,
+       they should be able to translate all such exchanges into
+       equivalent exchanges in Abstract Syntax.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Arnon                                                           [Page 8]
+