I didn't take it as a snipe. I simply wanted to point out that there have been successful examples of the top down consensus driven approach (the gene expression standards work is a very good example). The OMG brings a mature, consensus driven adoption process and where appropriate it should be utilized.
Mike > > > The "official" OMG way to do this is via UML and some buzz word about > > > technology free modelling, but there is still a massive tendancy for > > > top-down-design-by-committee, which I think just doesn't work, and > frankly > > > the Biojava/BioPerl data model (which are reasonably in sync, give or > take > > > the odd split location thang) is a fine way to start, and the usual > > > "propose idea on list, and whoever codes it wins the argument" is a > far > > > better resolving procedure than committees > > > > I'm not going to get into this one other than to say that this is > clearly an > > opinion and it doesn't represent everyone's position (not mine at > least). > > For the record, I'm on the board of directors of the OMG. > > Apologies Mike - that was not meant as a low snipe. I do have a more > serious point which the "working code, open discussion and progressive > refactoring" which is how the Bio* projects work is bascially > ExtremeProgramming in a geographically distributed way, and I think gives > the best results. Of course, YMMV. _______________________________________________ Biojava-l mailing list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://biojava.org/mailman/listinfo/biojava-l
