Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation
P1788:
Reminder: Voting on Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation
closes Feb. 13, 23:59 GMT. If you are missing the motion, it is appended
below. Vote is currently 39 Yes and zero No of 53 registered voters. Our
Policies and Procedures expect all registered voters to vote on each issue.
If you are a registered voter and have not voted, please do so.
If you are not a registered voter, you can register according to the
instructions appended below. Then vote.
Voting is public. Send your vote to this stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx alias.
You can reply to this email saying "YES" or "NO," but it saves email volume
if you just send an email with
- empty body
- subject line saying one of
Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation: YES
Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation: NO
Discussion
----------
Van Snyder, who is a member of this discussion alias, but chooses not to be
a registered voter, had written
> I reluctantly vote no on the motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation,
> with the following comments.
>
> While I agree with the concept of standardizing notation, the paper
> "Standardized notation in interval analysis" that is the basis for the
> motion is not sufficiently precise to serve in the capacity demanded by
> the motion. It is deficient as normative text in a standard, or as
> instructions for later developing normative text. It might usefully
> serve as informative material, but presumably there are parts of it that
> ought to be normative. Normative and informative text needs to be
> clearly separated, but I can't tell exactly which parts of the paper are
> intended to be normative and which parts are intended to be merely
> informative.
>
> The primary deficiency is that the descriptions of notations in clause 2
> of the paper are imprecise. It is not indicated whether the notational
> entities are upright or italic, or are bold or of normal weight, but
> these notational details are nonetheless used in subsequent paragraphs.
>
> For example, in other works, authors frequently use upper case latin
> letters for matrices, functions of matrices, sets, and functions of
> sets, and distinguish which of these is the case by using, e.g., upright
> normal for matrices, upright bold for functions of matrices, italic for
> sets, and italic bold for functions of sets. Which of these sorts of
> typographic conventions are to be used in the standard need to be
> specified.
>
> The notation [...,...] is introduced in the paragraph entitled
> "Intervals and boxes" but only as a definition for a box. It should be
> stated explicitly that an interval is a box composed from scalars (or
> column vectors of length 1).
> It would be helpful to have a table of notations, in addition to the
> specifications of notations interspersed with descriptions of the
> justifications for choosing them. ISO guidelines require an early
> clause defining terms and notations. This clause should have concise
> definitions, with references as necessary to relevant parts of the
> standard where more detailed descriptions can be found. The "terms and
> definitions" clause or the "Symbols and abbreviated terms" clause would
> be a natural place for such a table.
>
> The word "should" has a precise meaning in ISO "standardese." It does
> not impose a requirement, but rather a recommendation that can be
> ignored without endangering compliance. Where something is required for
> compliance, the word "shall" is the correct word. Do not use the word
> "must." It does not require compliance; rather, it indicates that the
> statement is an inevitable conclusion that can be reached by considering
> other parts of the standard that are indicated by "shall." ISO
> deprecates its use, as it might cause confusion with external legal
> requirements.
>
> ISO guidelines, as of 2004, are attached.
>
> --
> Van Snyder | What fraction of Americans believe
> Van.Snyder@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Wrestling is real and NASA is fake?
> Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or
> disapproved by JPL, CalTech, NASA, the President, or anybody else.
John Pryce had responded to Van:
------ Forwarded Message
From: John Pryce <j.d.pryce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:14:30 -0600
To: <stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Ballot on P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation
Dear Van
I agree with almost all of the specific criticisms you make of the
"Standardized notation in interval analysis" paper, but disagree with
the conclusion you draw.
- Yes, the descriptions of notations are imprecise. (But as
definitions-by-example they are mostly precise enough to use.)
- Yes, "e.g., upright normal for matrices, ... conventions are to be
used in the standard need to be specified" for us to develop the
standard text consistently.
- Yes, the notation [..,..] could be better introduced, and I feel
the relation between "pair of column vectors", "column vector of
scalar intervals", and "box as a set in R^n" needs clarifying:
important when some components of a vector of scalar intervals may be
the empty interval.
- etc.
But you write
"It is deficient as normative text in a standard, or as
instructions for later developing normative text. It might usefully
serve as informative material, but presumably there are parts of it that
ought to be normative."
My case is: in its proposed status as an appendix to the standard, it
is informative. None of it is normative. It inherently cannot be. For
one thing, there is nothing in our Project Authorisation Request
(PAR) about standardising notation. And what would it *mean* for it
to be a normative part of the eventual standard? That we could ask,
of any article written about intervals, whether it were "P1788
compliant"? We do not aim to be that sort of police.
Whether we accept it as binding on us while creating the standard
text, is irrelevant. That merely means we take it as normative for
our *process*, which is a quite different thing.
Yes, "It is deficient as ... instructions for later developing
normative text". I hope we produce in due course a crystalline
definition of interval notation that shines as a beacon to future
generations. But, as part of P1788's text it won't, and can't,
contain a single normative sentence. If we were creating a standard
for software that automatically writes papers on interval analysis,
that would be a different matter.
Personally, as M0001's Rationale suggests, I would rather accept the
notation paper as it is for now, harden up the notation "as we go",
and formalise an improved version later. But if
- you are not persuaded by my argument,
- or you feel, say, that from your long experience of standards
work, getting the notation issue sorted up-front will save us
time in the long term,
then I am happy, following our rules, to have an amended motion
discussed and voted on.
Best wishes
John Pryce
------ End of Forwarded Message
George Corliss, P1788 Voting Tabulator
OPEN VOTING PERIOD
-------------------------------------------------------------
IEEE P1788 working group members:
I hereby officially open the voting period on our first motion.
The voting period will continue for three weeks, until
2009/02/13/23:59GMT. I remind you that you should be
registered officially at the IEEE web site to vote. (We will
help you do this if our vote tabulator determines you are not.)
Voting is public. Send your vote to this
stds-1788@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx alias. You can reply to
this email saying "YES" or "NO," but it saves email
volume if you just send an email with
- empty body
- subject line saying one of
Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation: YES
Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation: NO
The formal rules are, if you vote "No," you should state
the reasons and the changes that, if made to the document,
would cause you to vote "Yes."
Since this motion is just a position paper, it is governed
by 10.1 and 10.5 of our policies and procedures, namely,
it will pass by a simple majority. A quorum is determined
by 10.4 of our policies and procedures document.
I append the actual motion, along with the proposer's Rationale.
(Although there was some discussion, no substantive amendments
were formally proposed, so the motion upon which we are voting
is the one originally stated.)
Sincerely,
R. Baker Kearfott
(acting chair, P1788)
===============================================================
Motion P1788/M0001.01_StandardizedNotation
Proposer: J D Pryce
=====
The P1788 standard will initially use the notation proposed in
the paper "Standardized notation in interval analysis" by R.B.
Kearfott, M.T. Nakao, A. Neumaier, S.M. Rump, S.P. Shary, and P.
van Hentenryck, available at
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/papers.html
This notation will be open to amendment after sufficient
experience of using it.
The standard will include a copy of the above paper (as possibly
amended) in an appendix.
=====
==Rationale==
As that paper itself says, interval notation is somewhat
fragmented at present. Here is the view of some experts who have
thought hard about this issue. We can do great service to
interval computation for many years ahead by helping to
disseminate their recommended practice, and following it
ourselves.
Rather than spend preliminary time debating whether we want to
amend the proposed standard notation, I think it is more
fruitful for us all to accept it as it is for now, and accept
the discipline of following its notation for future position
papers. In due course, either we are satisfied we can accept it
permanently, or some of us are so annoyed by its perceived
deficiencies that we have some constructive changes to make.
The motion does not say that all position papers SHALL use this
notation. I just strongly recommend this, so we get experience
of using it.
Note added after the discussion period:
Various people have pointed out perceived deficiencies in the
proposed notation. There has been useful discussion on this.
But no one has proposed a formal amendment to the motion.
Therefore it goes forward to a vote in its original form.
Please note you are not asked to fit into a notational strait-jacket.
The motion asks you to take the Notation Paper for what it is, and to
"follow" it flexibly, as is appropriate for your application.
=====
HOW TO REGISTER
===========================
R. Baker Kearfott (acting chair, IEEE 1788 working group)
===============================================================
IEEE interval arithmetic working group members,
We have been requested to make our participation official
by logging on to the IEEE web site and confirming our
name and affiliation (University of Karlsruhe, etc.) You
do not need to be an IEEE member to do this, but you do need
to have an IEEE web account, if you do not already have one.
Doing this official process accomplishes the following:
(a) It makes votes you submit official.
(b) It provides IEEE insurance against the results of your
activities on the working group, regardless of whether
or not you are an IEEE member.
The process is as follows. (Skip steps 1 to 3 if you already
have an IEEE web account.)
1. Go to IEEE.org
2. In the "What do you want to do" column on the right, click on
"set up IEEE web account"
3. Click on "Create an IEEE Web Account" and follow the instructions.
4. Once you have an IEEE user name and password, go to
standards.ieee.org and click on the "Standards Development" tab.
5. Click on "Log-in to MyProject."
6. You are presented with the login page. Put in your user name
and password and thus login.
7. On the next screen, click on "Manage Activity Profile."
8. You will be presented with a set of overall IEEE organizations,
whose activities can be expanded by clicking on the "+" to the
left of the names. Click on the "+" by "IEEE Computer Society."
9. In the resulting list under IEEE Computer Society, click on
the "+" by "Microprocessor Standards Committee."
10.In the list under "Microprocessor Standards Committee," click on
the "+" by "Working Group for Interval Arithmetic,"
then check all appropriate boxes.
11. Click on the "Continue" button at the bottom of the page.
12. It will then ask you questions, such as "Affiliation." (It
won't ask you private information.) Fill in the information.
Some persons have had a bit of trouble registering through the
IEEE site to be officially able to vote on working group
business. Several whom I have helped have had the same
problem, as follows: When you get to the list of working
groups (step 10 in the instructions between the "===" below),
it is possible to expand "Working Group for Interval Arithmetic"
by clicking on the "+". If you do that, you will find
a single item below it, entitled "Standard for Interval Arithmetic".
The box beside the "Standard for Interval Arithmetic" is
irrelevant at present. Instead, you should check the
box "Working Group for Interval Arithmetic" (at the
higher level in the hierarchy) and press "continue."
P.P.S. Don't worry if it says that you can only be added
as an interested observer. I check the list periodically
and when our "official vote tabulator" asks me to do
so. At those times, I change new registrants' status to
"voting member."
I just got a call from Malia Zaman at IEEE. She explained
to me that the lower level of the selection process,
"Standard for Interval Arithmetic," is indeed for the
ballot group, which is the IEEE process that ratifies
our standard after the working group finishes it. You
should check that box too (that is, you should check
BOTH boxes), if you want to vote "yes" or "no" on the
final standard that we hand to the Sponsor. However,
I only see the roster for "Working Group for Interval
Arithmetic," while the Sponsor sees the "Standard for
Interval Arithmetic" list. When it is eventually time to do the
sponsor ballot, the Sponsor will select the Ballot Group
from the list on "Standard for Interval Arithmetic."
(Presently, the Sponsor is the MSC, chaired by Bob Davis.)
Bob has indicated that the Ballot Group will have considerable
overlap with the Working Group, although the actual
selection is at the discretion of the MSC, and there
are considerations of balance of interest (e.g. we wouldn't
want more than half of the people to be, say, from a
single corporation. Our working group seems to presently
have a good geographical balance and balance of interests.).
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------