Re: [SED-ML-discuss] SED-ML roadmap (revived)

[Nicolas Le N. <le...@eb...>]

On 15/06/11 14:45, Richard Adams wrote:

> Possibly the 2 strand development might be good, but there also the
> practical considerations that most people (editors, developers) are
> developing SED-ML on a 'best-effort' semi-voluntary basis and we have
> limited resources. Speaking with my software-developer hat on, it will be a
> lot more effort to develop support for two strands in parallel.

This assumes that everyone has to support the whole SED-ML. As shown with 
SBML (and HTML before that) this is a pipe dream. Having different 
*co-exiting* levels allow people to choose the coverage. The alternative 
solution of a single development track has some advantages, but it also 
freeze the language, because we have to keep the changes to the existing 
coverage to a minimum while exploring new territories.

>  Also the '
> We allow ourselves to go a bit wild, and imagine more drastic changes' is
> not necessarily a linear progression either, and may need branches in the
> development tree, leading to fragmentation of an already small developer-base .

Yes ... if the implementation follows closely the development. Again, this 
brings obvious advantages, but also freezes the language. Now that L1V1 is 
out, the pressure to have implementations is a bit (just a bit) lower.

-- 
Nicolas LE NOVERE, Computational Systems Neurobiology, EMBL-EBI, WTGC,
Hinxton CB101SD UK, Mob:+447833147074, Tel:+441223494521 Fax:468,
Skype:n.lenovere, AIM:nlenovere, twitter:@lenovere
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov/, http://www.ebi.ac.uk/compneur/