- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:45:31 +0100
- To: public-semweb-lifesci hcls <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
On 13 May 2009, at 11:21, Bijan Parsia wrote: [snip] And, to be clear, I'm not always (or typically) very good at the political side in practice because I'm (as should be evident) a grouchy person. To try to summarize constructively, Michael: HCLSIG cannot, itself, standardize SBML under the current charter. HCLSIG can, of course, do a lot of things that make standardization of SBML more likely. One thing it to publicize it, evangelize it, and gather evidence of consensus behind it. Not only can it do these things for various technologies, it's arguably part of its purpose. Some of those things (e.g., making a W3C member submission) can be done even outside of HCLSIG, so if the group doesn't have the energy to pursue it, there are other avenues for pursuing standardization at the W3C. Standardization is expensive to you and to other people, so it's good to have a clear, neutrally worded case prepared (think of it as the first step toward standardization). It's kinda like a grant application. I'm not saying that you need it all worked up now, but a simple spiel like, "Hey, we have some commercial interested in SBML that would benefit from a unifying standard." helps let people start considering whether they think it's worth it. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 11:41:42 UTC