On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Dashamir Hoxha <[email protected]>wrote:
> I think that it is important to divide data formats into source code > and consumable. > For example, the source code of a document can be in LaTeX or in XML; the > consumable can be PDF or PS. The source code of the document is compiled > somehow in order to generate the consumable version. > > If we make this distinction, then it is clear that it is not so much > useful to keep > in version control the binary versions of the documents. We should keep the > source code instead. > > Regards, > Dashamir Hoxha > > > In science I tend to use the categories: * source code (Java , C, etc.) * documents (Word, LaTeX...) and I agree * data (*.csv, *.netcdf, and many other bespoke formats (e.g. my own CML for chemistry) These all have different challenges (and all require different licensing models). I think data is by far the hardest as we have to deal with domain-specific semantics (e.g. I can swop the order of two atoms without changing the abstraction). I think there are about 1000 scientific data formats and we will have to deal with all of them separately > > -- > Peter Murray-Rust > Reader in Molecular Informatics > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry > University of Cambridge > CB2 1EW, UK > +44-1223-763069 >
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
