CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] Survey on opinions for the backwards compatibility levels for future CellML Specs


Chronological Thread 
  • 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.

Top of page