Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Input needed: Open Standards or Open Specifications?

2010-02-19 Thread Peter Murray-Rust
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Egon Willighagen egon.willigha...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: GeoffH has made a useful suggestion (on the BO Stack Overflow,

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Input needed: Open Standards or Open Specifications?

2010-02-19 Thread Andrew Dalke
On Feb 19, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: GeoffH has made a useful suggestion (on the BO Stack Overflow, If [a spec/standard] is freely modifiable, then it's likely to fragment. Look at HTML for an example. Except as I pointed out in my comment to Geoff, the HTML specification is

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Input needed: Open Standards or Open Specifications?

2010-02-19 Thread Egon Willighagen
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Peter Murray-Rust pm...@cam.ac.uk wrote: This does not mean that there is a universal absolute right to absolute modification, but that the process of modification should be formalized. Within that some things will be permitted or encourgaed and others will be

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Input needed: Open Standards or Open Specifications?

2010-02-19 Thread Egon Willighagen
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Andrew Dalke da...@dalkescientific.com wrote: On Feb 19, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Egon Willighagen wrote: Freedom to redistribute and modify is used in Open Source to make that a non-issue. (just saying ... I think people understand where I'm getting at :) You

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Input needed: Open Standards or Open Specifications?

2010-02-19 Thread Andrew Dalke
On Feb 19, 2010, at 9:06 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: I take a completely different view here. There were several early implementations of CML done without my knowledge or the simple courtesy of contacting me/Henry. There are programs supplied by commercial companies which save as CML and

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Input needed: Open Standards or Open Specifications?

2010-02-19 Thread Andrew Dalke
On Feb 19, 2010, at 10:11 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote: Taking a step back... .. That's the totality of the formality. Our terms are vague. I believe deliberately. That is not the issue at hand. The Blue Obelisk wiki has historically stated

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Input needed: Open Standards or Open Specifications?

2010-02-19 Thread Craig James
At last count, there are 38 replies to this thread. My posting to BO and OB earnestly requesting help with the SMILES aromaticity definition got ... zero replies on this forum, and one on OpenBabel, from Geoff. Just pointing this out. Open, closed, specification, standard ... it's all

Re: [BlueObelisk-discuss] Input needed: Open Standards or Open Specifications?

2010-02-19 Thread Egon Willighagen
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Craig James craig_ja...@emolecules.com wrote: My posting to BO and OB earnestly requesting help with the SMILES aromaticity definition got ... zero replies on this forum, and one on OpenBabel, from Geoff. Aromaticity is a really nasty topic... I might have