Re: [SED-ML-discuss] Future of SED-ML

[Frank T. B. <fbe...@ca...>]

> > I would argue, that we are not re-inventing the wheel. What we are
> > doing is creating a language independent specification of simulations.
> 
> If we are creating a new language to describe simulation procedures
> imperatively, it isn't language-independent - it is dependent on the new
> language we invent (you wouldn't be able to describe your simulations
> independently of the new 'nested simulations' language).
> 

Language independent here meant programming language independent. As XML
parsers are accessible in any programming language it would be straight
forward to use the new construct in all of them, with considerably less
overhead than it would take to embed / execute a description in any script
language we chose. 

> 
> This same argument applies equally to a newly created nested simulations
> language, except that a newly created language will have a far smaller
base of
> existing code to try to interoperate with.
> 

And so no, people are still free to choose the programming language for
their tools with minimal overhead. 

> We are trying to do two slightly different things. 

I agree with this at least :) And I think your and my position is quite
clear at this point. We just need to sort out where the community wants this
to move. 

Cheers
Frank