Re:ICALP workshop proposal: Applications of New Proof Theory

At 8:01 Uhr +0100 01.11.2004, Alessio Guglielmi wrote:
> At 15:24 +0200 28.10.04, Charles A Stewart wrote:
> > I talked yesterday with Alessio about the possibility of putting
> > together a workshop that would highlight the kind of proof theory
> > that we like: deep inference, rewriting modulo, and generally
> > good proof theory.  I think the idea of "new proof theory" is a way
> > to get away from the unhealthy conservatism that cripples so much
> > work on proof theory done in the LICS community.
>
> I think the workshop might be a good idea. I checked with Catuscia 
> (who's PC chair) and she told me that what we do fits ICALP very 
> well.

Well, if it fits then we should try.

> I'm not sure about "new proof theory" etc. I would go for a lower, 
> technical profile rather than an ideological one.

Me neither. From one hand it is not informative, and from the other 
it can sound offensive for those that make "old proof theory": does 
it bring any good hurting their sensibility? (Can we claim our 
ideology is that of an ecological proof theory respecting all 
amphibians, at the very first place?)

A title can be found after we know the topics we want to include.

> The workshop organisation might be a collaboration with Nancy, also 
> as a nice way to conclude our Procope project. What do you think 
> Francois?
>
> A theme could be "Deep inference and proof nets", or something like 
> that, joining in the broadest sense our common themes. Since we 
> organised in Dresden already several workshops along these lines, we 
> should have a certain credibility. One common goal to state could be 
> getting to deductive proof nets.

I agree.

> A more provocative idea could be to dedicate the workshop to 
> something like "towards deductive proof nets", but I don't know how 
> many people share my feelings about the subject...
>
> One thing I'd like to do is having a face-to-face discussion about 
> the issues in the last several emails about strategic goals, ways to 
> achieve them, etc.
>
> Another thing I'd be interested in doing is having a discussion with 
> the display calculus people. Perhaps Rajeev would be around in 
> Europe and willing to do this. Rajeev?
>
> >   - Who would be interested in organising all the things that need
> >   to be organised?
> >   - Who probably doesn't have much time to help, but would like to
> >   be involved to some degree?
>
> The organisation work doesn't seem to be much, and I certainly am 
> willing to help.
>
> Right now, my future is uncertain, and I'm not 100% sure of being 
> available for synchronous communication in the months immediately 
> preceding the workshop. For this reason I'd prefer not to be an 
> official organiser, but I'll most probably be able to handle 
> asynchronous tasks.

I'm interested in organising the event. But if Alessio needs to 
travel, say, just before the conference, I might not be able to 
guarantee my availability at the final phase. A possible solution, if 
I am involved officially,  would be to have a second official 
organiser: I work more at the beginning and the second person at the 
end.


> >   - Who might submit papers to such a workshop?  In what areas?  How
> >   many papers altogether?
>
> Let's discuss this after the topics are defined.
>
> > Who do we know would be willing to do the soul-destroying task of 
> > refereeing submissions?
>
> That's something I can do. IMPORTANT CONDITION: for the usual 
> political reasons I'm willing to participate only if there are no 
> (widely disseminated) proceedings. Subsequent publication in 
> journals is fine, of course, after further, careful journal-standard 
> reviewing.

I have no specific opinion on refereeing yet, as it depends on the 
topics and number of submissions we expect to collect. I would like 
to preserve the same spirit of meetings we had so far.


> >   - Who would be suitable to invite to be Invited Speakers?
>
> Again, let's discuss this after the topics are defined.

I agree

> > Comments on the above or anything I have omitted welcome. I think 
> > we should decide whether or not to put together a proposal by the 
> > end of next week (ie. Friday, 5th November 2004).
>
> That's another thing I can help doing. I wrote already a few 
> documents outlining my "vision" and research goals and methods, 
> available from my web pages. If you think they might be suitable for 
> a proposal, we could start from parts of these.
>
> -Alessio

-Paola