This video presentation was quite good, and relevant to this topic:
Paul Downey
Standards are Great, but Standardisation is a Really Bad Idea
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/downey-standards-great-standardization-bad
He mentions the Open Web Foundation, at
On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
Yes frequently. Daylight have consistently refused to publish algorithms.
I assume you mean the canonicalization algorithm. As that algorithm
does not affect the use of SMILES as a chemical exchange format (for
example, OpenSMILES does not
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
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
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
TJ O'Donnell:
You could even run the BO linux VM on a linux host!
Konstantin Tokarev:
I can do it. But why?
TJ:
It was a joke :)
More seriously, not all Linux distributions are interoperable, and getting the
right combination of compilers and libraries can be tricky, so there can be
reasons
On Jul 31, 2010, at 12:30 AM, Egon Willighagen wrote:
some legal framework kicks in to overcome this problem...
I'm pretty sure it works something like that with
copyright on books too... not?
Not.
Orphan works - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works
See also abandonware -
On Aug 27, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Craig James wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but ... There is a difference between the BindDB
data and what the users enter. The terms under which the data are
licensed have nothing to do with who owns the user-entered queries. I
looked around the BindDB web site and
On Aug 27, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
We struggled for this for 2 years on the Panton Principles
(pantonprinciples.org) and believe that a licence is highly desirable as it
clarifies the position.
In the first few days of summer I run errands outside and enjoy the warmth. But
On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:09 PM, Stefan Kuhn wrote:
I can't see how the decision you quote says that in the US database works are
not protected. It basically repeats the wipo copyright convention, which
says: ... So databases are protected, given they are intellectual
creations,
i. e. are
On Aug 29, 2012, at 1:01 AM, Craig James wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:46 AM, John P. Overington j...@ebi.ac.uk wrote:
I think there are some quite big issues with releasing query sets without
explicit
permission (informed consent) from the users. I think most users do not think
that
On Aug 28, 2012, at 9:46 AM, John P. Overington wrote:
especially if this is not made crystal clear that future exposure of these
queries is likely, or allowed
Would that be disclosed in the privacy statement?
What percentage of the people actually read those privacy statements?
Assuming
On Aug 27, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Andrew Dalke wrote:
Perhaps the Blue Obelisk Open Data page could describe what one should do
in order to make their datasets open, or to disclaim any legal protections to
data sets?
Here is text which I think helps fill in the Open Data, Open Source,
Open
On Aug 29, 2012, at 10:12 PM, Craig James wrote:
Coincidentally, this was on SlashDot today:
Five leading Internet standards bodies have joined together to articulate
a set of guidelines for the creation of open standards ...
Interesting. The principles are laid out at
On Aug 29, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Craig James wrote:
My comments about the repercussions of releasing the data
are all from a social and scientific point of view.
Understood. I'm thinking that this would be an
interesting topic for the free software track
at GCC this fall.
NetFlix screwed up
On Aug 29, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
[Please note that I personally do not have write access to the BO pages].
So, umm, who does?
On Aug 30, 2012, at 12:30 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
For CML Henry Rzepa was an equal partner throughout, of course.
We have had this discussion
On Aug 30, 2012, at 9:36 AM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
This wasn't to argue the point - it was to make sure that Henry's
contribution was recognized.
Thank you for the clarification. I did indeed omit recognizing him.
I suggested the mantra- ODOSOS as a phrase to concentrate around. It has
On Aug 30, 2012, at 4:38 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
How do we decide if something is ODOSOS? the issue hasn't come up - in that
we haven't rejected anything or anyone. Anyone can come to a BO dinner, post
on this list. That's the extent of the activities. Blue Obelisks have been
given to
On Aug 30, 2012, at 1:45 AM, Andrew Dalke wrote:
Understood. I'm thinking that this would be an
interesting topic for the free software track
at GCC this fall.
Here's the abstract I sent in a few days ago (the deadline
was the 1st) for the Goslar conference:
===
Scientific openness
On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Andrew Dalke wrote:
For kicks, I pulled up my copy of the PDB format from 1974. It says that
the PDB file has: COMPND, AUTHOR, CRYST1, DECODE, REMARK
Err, that was supposed to be deleted. I found that I didn't have a complete
spec, dug through the old PDB
On Jul 22, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Noel O'Boyle wrote:
Nice, but note the casual redefinition of open source.
- Noel
Because of this thread, I sent an email to the organizer for clarification.
A bit of background to start off:
This workshop in cheminformatics is relatively small, between
30
Here's another example of how it's important to know the clear goal of
collecting such a list.
One of the entries someone added to the spreadsheet is:
Tanimoto, Taffee T. (17 Nov 1958).
"An Elementary Mathematical theory of Classification and Prediction".
Internal IBM Technical Report.
H Suliman,
On Dec 19, 2021, at 05:51, Suliman Sharif wrote
>> When was the current state of machine representation figured out?
>
> I would say the 1980s was after the invention of SMILES where they used
> something somewhat "readable", they got it started and now we continue is my
> thought
On Dec 3, 2021, at 02:33, Suliman Sharif wrote:
> our generation gets to have a little fun where machine representation and
> manipulation of chemical objects has been mostly figured out,
When was the current state of machine representation figured out?
As a reminder, there's an infinite
Welcome!
> On Dec 2, 2021, at 06:05, Suliman Sharif wrote:
>
> Is there some sort of cryptic cheminformatic puzzle I have to solve to join?
What's a SMILES for a 50x50 sheet of graphene?
Which US politician could be known as [Au].O , ignoring whitespace?
Make a molfile which can be parsed by
On Jan 20, 2022, at 10:05, Peter Murray-Rust via Blueobelisk-discuss
wrote:
>
> I think it's wonderful that we have an un-organization that is still going
> strong.
What would it look like if the organization were not going strong, but existed
mostly from inertia and a lack of a better
26 matches
Mail list logo
