Good points. Re: Peter's mention of the European groups taking up CellML
as per their funding commitments, and his comment that 2008 promises to
be a very busy year indeed for us, I think we can hedge our bets on the
latter.
Kind regards,
James
Randall Britten wrote:
Hi all
I think the policy depends on the answer to these two questions:
1) In terms of how widely CellML has been adopted worldwide, how does the
current status compare to what we expect in say 6 months, and say a year
from now?
2) How successful have we been in terms of achieving the vision of CellML?
If we think CellML is about as popular as it ever will be, and that the
current version is essentially good enough, then our emphasis may be on
compatibility. However, if we think that the rate of adoption will increase
dramatically at some point in the future, and that there is a lot of room
for improvement, then it may be better to break compatibility now, while it
is still early enough, but we have learnt enough to make one of the next
versions a lot better than the current version.
My impression is that we are in the latter position.
Regards,
Randall
_______________________________________________
cellml-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
begin:vcard
fn:James Lawson
n:Lawson;James
org:Auckland Bioengineering Institute;CellML Model Repository Curator, CellML Team
adr:;;University of Auckland;;;;New Zealand
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:James Lawson
url:http://www.cellml.org
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
cellml-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
