[Axiom-developer] Why did Axiom fail in the 1990s? (was: Paper usage policy (for authors))

[William Sit]

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? 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?

> This is why I think the logical approch to take for pamphlets on
> subjects where we have no legal right to the original source material
> is to write our own review paper in the process, outlining the key
> points and weaving the original papers' ideas together into a whole
> (which is also the point of the CAS code, after all - at least for the
> well established mathematical work that will probably form the focus of
> most of our literate efforts for the first few years.)  What to do
> about original work without a larger body of literate is somewhat less
> clear, although I think in most cases an article appropriate for
> inclusion as a pamphlet will have to be slightly different from a
> typical research article.  (More background, context, etc.)

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. 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. (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.) 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). 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"). 

> Hopefully, we can eventually make Axiom a driver for free availability
> of new publications in mathematical research via some sort of Axiom
> journal.  If the goal is truly to spread knowledge and learn, expensive
> commercial journals and their per-article or subscription fees present
> a barrior to that goal.  (Certainly I feel it, not being at a major
> university - there are ways but especially for older papers tracking
> them down can be extremely difficult.  We want knowledge to be easily
> accessible.  It's hard enough to get people to want to learn - why make
> it any harder when they actually do try to learn?)  I view this as a
> secondary goal of pamphlets - if Axiom is structured correctly, the
> pamphlets should eventually constitute a very high quality, complete
> description of the mathematical landscape that is freely available to
> everyone (which just incidently happens to have running CAS code to let
> you immediately apply those same ideas).

I agree with the goal, just not the means. Moreover, for
that vision to be realized, the prerequisite is a very large
user base. In its earlier days, SCRATCHPAD II had a fairly
respectable user base, contributing to hundreds of algebra
packages (the number of build-developers were about the same
as we currently have: a handful). We should perhaps
investigate why so many have abandoned Axiom and so few new
users. Documentation may be one reason, but history suggests
otherwise. Price may be another historic reason, but now it
is free. A steep learning curve? That did not stop the
earlier contributors and surely with so much more support
now, the learning curve should be less steep.
Non-functioning hyperdoc? But hyperdoc was fully working in
the NAG days. Aldor? Well, Aldor is not fairing that well
either. Perhaps the reasons are external to Axiom. Fewer
mathematicians or computer science doctorates? (that seems
to be the trend). Fewer people interested in computation?
(that can't be true! but the entrance level has certainly
gone higher). National Science Foundation (U.S.) no longer
supports Axiom? (that's it!) Any non-U.S. government
stepping in? would forming a non-profit tax-exempt
organization be able to raise sufficient funds for
supporting graduate students? -- that's about $30,000 per
student per year. We need half a million at 6% interest for
one.

Next question: what can we do to increase user base? (Let's
hear yours.)
 
> 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? (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.)
 
> The analogy I have always liked is the advancement of transportation.
> Take traveling west in the US, for example - people started doing it in
> covered wagons because that was quicker and easier for them than
> building anything better.  But soon, people built railways that
> dramatically improved just about everything where travel was concerned.
>  It made all sorts of things possible that were impossible before.
> Same with the US highway system - two lane roads will get you there,
> but superhighways will do it faster and much more quickly.  For an
> individual car, it makes more sense to use what is already there.  When
> many people rely on something, it's worth doing right even at the
> expense of greater up front cost and work.  Hopefully Axiom will prove
> to be an enabler for new types of mathematical research and and new
> levels of rigor and speed.  That's worth doing right, even if we have
> to spend the time to make the infrastructure to make it possible first.

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


William