- From: Oliver Ruebenacker <curoli@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 05:48:26 -0400
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: Michael Hucka <mhucka@caltech.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org
Hello Bijan, Michael, All, The group does not deliver standards, but can submit something for consideration to W3C. I remember this being discussed indetail in one of the phone conferences. If SBML is not deserving of being a standard, the what is? Something no one uses? Take care Oliver On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 13 May 2009, at 03:12, Michael Hucka wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>>> I hope this is not too off-topic -- I'm new to this >>>> group and still am trying to get a sense for what it's >>>> about. >> >> bparsia> The way to figure out it's formal scope is to >> bparsia> read the charter: >> bparsia> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/HCLSIGCharter >> >> In fact, I did that before posting. But there is enough >> breadth and room for interpretation in the statements > > I don't see how. If you look at: > http://www.w3.org/2008/05/HCLSIGCharter#deliverables > you see that the group deliverables do not include standards. > >> there >> that I still was not entirely certain whether my question >> would be considered appropriate, > > I think you are conflating standardization with the other activities. I > think SBML is the kind of thing for which HCLSIG could, if the members felt > up to it, implement use cases, produce technical collateral, etc. > > Thus, if you are looking for a wider forum for SBML, HCLSIG is appropriate. > > If you really want (and need) to produce a *standard*, that is, a > specification of a language that has the formal endorsement of the W3C, then > HCLSIG is merely a place to start building consensus for the chartering of > such a group. > > [snip] >> >> bparsia> Well, given that standardization is a costly >> bparsia> endeavor, I'd ask about the motivations and >> bparsia> expected benefits for moving development into a >> bparsia> standards body, per se.n There are lots of >> bparsia> different sorts of standards body and lots of >> bparsia> different reasons for pursuing standardization. >> >> Indeed. Standardization of SBML has been discussed over >> many years in the SBML community, > > Pointers? > >> but generally pushed back >> due to various reasons, such as the question of whether SBML >> was ready, and whether we had the resources to pursue >> official standards recognition. > > And is there a reason? I mean, if you have interop already and buy-in from > key players, then all that's left is publicity (or badge collecting). These > can be worthwhile, but they come at considerable cost, not just for you, but > for the W3C. > >> We may still lack the >> resources (depends on what's involved), but aside from that, >> my sense is that it is time to look into it seriously now. > > [snip] > > But, again, why? I mean, what goals do you have for standardization? Are > there implementations that don't comply? Are there vendors who can't sell > their SBML tool to govt agencies due to the procurement requirement to use > "recognized standards" thus they are forced to use older, inadequate > standards? Or is there a user base that likely *would* use (and benefit) > from it but just need to know they are working "with a standard"? Or are > there patent implications you are trying to work around? > > Cheers, > Bijan. > > -- Oliver Ruebenacker, Computational Cell Biologist BioPAX Integration at Virtual Cell (http://vcell.org/biopax) Center for Cell Analysis and Modeling http://www.oliver.curiousworld.org
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 09:49:01 UTC