Re: [eaml-design] Initial focus

[Mariusz N. <ma...@ma...>]

R=E9mon Sinnema wrote:
[...]
> But before we delve into that, we need agreement on how EAML will/shoul=
d be
> used. In my previous post, I outlined my view on the process of conduct=
ing
> EA experiments, and EAML's role in it, but I haven't received any comme=
nts
> so far. The way we're gonna use EAML dictates what is looks like, so I
> really feel that we should tackle this issue first.

Sure. I think EAML should be as self-contained and as flexible as we can=20
make it. I agree with all the points you have said about the separation=20
of inputs and usage pattern for EAML.
However our own pragmatic perspective on EAML is not as much=20
"experiment" driven - it is more "communication" driven. I agree that=20
the idea of treating and describing EA in terms of conducting an=20
experiment is good - but for us it is "too big". We do not really need=20
that much of machinery.

Thus I think it may be bettar to start from something simple, and build=20
on top of it. The design of EAML will evolve, and there is a lot of=20
problems to try to design it once and for all.

What our research lab currently looking for, and what we want EAML to be=20
used for, is:
* to share structural design of the genetic material between frameworks
* to share actual individuals between frameworks

* to be able to instantiate (and parametrize) the distributed EA in=20
multiple platforms (and multiple frameworks)
* to be able to save the state of EA from one framework and=20
re-instantiate it in anothor framework

* other

I think that the spectrum of all possible "experiments" in EA is too=20
broad for us to capture and generalize now. But, it would be interesting=20
project, no doubt.

So, in summary, our view, at least in a short-term goals, is to use EAML=20
primarily as an "interchange" language. But I think all other uses,=20
including the "documentary" aspect, are ok as well.

What do others think?

Mariusz