Mathematical proof is undoubtedly the cornerstone of mathematics. The emergence, in the last years, of computing and reasoning tools, in particular automated geometry theorem provers, has enriched our experience with mathematics immensely. To avoid disparate efforts,the Open Geometry Prover Community Project aims at the integration of the different efforts for the development of geometry automated theorem provers, under a common "umbrella". In this article the necessary steps to such integration are specified and the current implementation of some of those steps is described.

The geometry automated theorem proving area distinguishes itself by a large number of specific methods and implementations, different approaches (synthetic, algebraic, semi-synthetic) and different goals and applications (from research in the area of artificial intelligence to applications in education). Apart from the usual measures of efficiency (e.g. CPU time), the possibility of visual and/or readable proofs is also an expected output against which the geometry automated theorem provers (GATP) should be measured. The implementation of a competition between GATP would allow to create a test bench for GATP developers to improve the existing ones and to propose new ones. It would also allow to establish a ranking for GATP that could be used by "clients" (e.g. developers of educational e-learning systems) to choose the best implementation for a given intended use.

The field of geometric automated theorem provers has a long and rich history, from the early AI approaches of the 1960s, synthetic provers, to today algebraic and synthetic provers. The geometry automated deduction area differs from other areas by the strong connection between the axiomatic theories and its standard models. In many cases the geometric constructions are used to establish the theorems' statements, geometric constructions are, in some provers, used to conduct the proof, used as counter-examples to close some branches of the automatic proof. Synthetic geometry proofs are done using geometric properties, proofs that can have a visual counterpart in the supporting geometric construction. With the growing use of geometry automatic deduction tools as applications in other areas, e.g. in education, the need to evaluate them, using different criteria, is felt. Establishing a ranking among geometric automated theorem provers will be useful for the improvement of the current methods/implementations. Improvements could concern wider scope, better efficiency, proof readability and proof reliability. To achieve the goal of being able to compare geometric automated theorem provers a common test bench is needed: a common language to describe the geometric problems; a comprehensive repository of geometric problems and a set of quality measures.