A list for the developers of CellML tools
Text archives Help
[cellml-dev] FW: Java wrappers vs Simulation and graphing metadata specification work
Chronological Thread
- From: r.britten at auckland.ac.nz (Randall Britten)
- Subject: [cellml-dev] FW: Java wrappers vs Simulation and graphing metadata specification work
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 14:23:25 +1300
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nickerson [mailto:david.nickerson at gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2008 2:19 p.m.
> To: Randall Britten
> Cc: Alan Garny
> Subject: Re: [cellml-dev] Java wrappers vs Simulation and graphing
> metadata specification work
>
> I agree. Java access to the CellML API has been the most important
> item in need of addressing for a long time now and in my view it is
> still the most important issue to address.
>
>
> Andre.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Alan Garny <alan.garny at dpag.ox.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > Hi Randall,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am, personally, still of the view that a Java binding is more
> important.
> > As we know, quite a few groups do use Java, so if we want to get them
> to use
> > CellML, it's pretty obvious that we must provide them with a Java
> interface
> > to the CellML API. Metadata would obviously be useful to them too,
> but
> > without access to the CellML API...
> >
> >
> >
> > Another point is that the clock has been ticking for months and the
> longer
> > we delay the Java binding, the less inclined those groups will be to
> using
> > CellML. This may be trivial, but let's not forget indeed that they
> have to
> > carry on with their research, so they cannot wait for us indefinitely.
> This
> > is why some groups have already come up with their own CellML API
> while
> > others may end up using another format, neither of which we want.
> >
> >
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> >
> > From: cellml-tools-developers-bounces at cellml.org
> > [mailto:cellml-tools-developers-bounces at cellml.org] On Behalf Of
> Randall
> > Britten
> > Sent: 04 November 2008 23:56
> > To: cellml-tools-developers at cellml.org
> > Cc: 'David Nickerson'
> > Subject: [cellml-dev] Java wrappers vs Simulation and graphing
> metadata
> > specification work
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >
> > In prioritising the work to be done next by Andrew and Justin and
> Alan on
> > PCEnv and on CDA (CellML-DOM-API), one thing we have not yet been
> able to
> > resolve the relative priorities of work that could aid finalisation
> of the
> > simulation and graphing metadata specifications vs creating a Java
> wrapper
> > of the CDA. As it stands, PCEnv parses simulation and graphing
> metadata,
> > but its format is out of synch with the latest draft of the specs.
> Andrew
> > suggests we could possibly address this by creating another API
> service for
> > processing each of these, which is an option now that he has
> implemented the
> > RDF service. Both Andre and Alan expressed the view that the Java
> wrappers
> > should be given the highest priority, do you still feel that way
> given that
> > it does delay the metadata work?
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Randall
>
>
>
> --
>
> Fulton J. Sheen - "Hearing nuns' confessions is like being stoned to
> death with popcorn."
- [cellml-dev] FW: Java wrappers vs Simulation and graphing metadata specification work, Randall Britten, 11/05/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.
