Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Abhishek Tiwari wrote:

> P.S. regarding different standards or notation systems, it will be never
> irrelevant to have multiple standards (domination may be mantra of
> Microsoft), it gives freedom to choose and that's beauty of open
> community based projects.

You are absolutely right when it comes to "notation systems". EPE or Vanted
are a good examples, where you can choose different way of representing
things. Like for style-sheets in HTML, on can use different rendering to
enrich the concept presented.

When it comes to "standards" I beg to differ. The purpose of SBGN is to
have a language that can be unambiguously interpreted, by all, without any
legend. It is for exchange of maps. Not just for display.

Imagine a world where Boing, Airbus and Lockeed used different graphical
notations for electrical circuits. Now imagine you are one of the dozens of
subcontractors working for the three of them. Imagine you are an engineer
in charge of the safety in a major airport.

SBGN is not like SBML or CellML, where there are API, libraries etc. to
help with reading, writing and converting. SBGN is standalone, and has to
be understood by a student, an experimental biologist, a modeler, from an
article, a powerpoint slide, a pathway software, all that without any
additional information ...

--
Nicolas LE NOVERE, Computational Neurobiology, EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-Trust
Genome Campus, Hinxton CB101SD UK, Mob:+447833147074, Tel:+441223494521
Fax:468, Skype:n.lenovere, AIM:nlenovere, MSN:nlenovere at hotmail.com
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov/, http://www.ebi.ac.uk/compneur/

---

• [cellml-discussion] cellml-discussion Digest, Vol 51, Issue 16, Abhishek Tiwari, 10/31/2008
  • [cellml-discussion] Visual model design and editing capabilities for CellML, Nicolas Le novère, 10/31/2008
  • [cellml-discussion] cellml-discussion Digest, Vol 51, Issue 16, Michael Hucka, 10/31/2008

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.