which exhibits as a module over in that it is equipped with equivalences
maybe better: weak tensoring?
Section 4.2.1 of
This was originally at bicategory:
Sebastian: Is there a formal meaning of weak enrichment?
John Baez: Yes there is; indeed Clark Barwick is writing a huge book on this.
Sebastian: If not, is there at least a method how to get the definition of a weak -category if I know the definition of a (strict) -category?
John Baez: that sounds harder! That’s like pushing a rock uphill. It’s easier to go down from weak to strict.
Sebastian: Of course, I have recognised that there are actually different definitions of what a weak n-category should be… so to give my question a bit more precision: How do I get a definition of a weak -category that is as close as possible to the definition of a strict -category? The weak -category should be what you call “globular”, I think. (Are there different definitions of globular (weak or strict) n-categories?)
John Baez: globular strict n-categories have been understood since time immemorial, or at least around 1963, and there is just one reasonable definition. Globular weak n-categories were defined in the 1990s by Michael Batanin, and his theory relates them quite nicely to the globular strict ones. But there is also a different definition of globular weak n-categories due to Penon. It had a mistake in it which has now been fixed.
From the preface to Towards Higher Categories:
There is a quite different and more extensively developed operadic approach to globular weak infinity-categories due to Batanin (Bat1, Str2), with a variant due to Leinster (Lein3). Penon (Penon) gave a related, very compact definition of infinity-category; this definition was later corrected and improved by Batanin (Bat2) and Cheng and Makkai (ChMakkai).
You can get the references there.
I think this discussion should be moved over to some page on n-categories, since it’s not really about bicategories.