- From: j.lawson at auckland.ac.nz (James Lawson)
- Subject: [cellml-discussion] Survey on opinions for the backwards compatibility levels for future CellML Specs
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:15:23 +1300
Good points. Re: Peter's mention of the European groups taking up CellML
as per their funding commitments, and his comment that 2008 promises to
be a very busy year indeed for us, I think we can hedge our bets on the
latter.
Kind regards,
James
Randall Britten wrote:
>
Hi all
>
>
I think the policy depends on the answer to these two questions:
>
>
1) In terms of how widely CellML has been adopted worldwide, how does the
>
current status compare to what we expect in say 6 months, and say a year
>
from now?
>
2) How successful have we been in terms of achieving the vision of CellML?
>
>
If we think CellML is about as popular as it ever will be, and that the
>
current version is essentially good enough, then our emphasis may be on
>
compatibility. However, if we think that the rate of adoption will increase
>
dramatically at some point in the future, and that there is a lot of room
>
for improvement, then it may be better to break compatibility now, while it
>
is still early enough, but we have learnt enough to make one of the next
>
versions a lot better than the current version.
>
>
My impression is that we are in the latter position.
>
>
Regards,
>
Randall
>
>
_______________________________________________
>
cellml-discussion mailing list
>
cellml-discussion at cellml.org
>
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: j_lawson.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 278 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.cellml.org/pipermail/cellml-discussion/attachments/20080111/c1e37162/attachment.vcf
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.