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 poli
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
On 2008 Jan 09, at 14:49, Andrew Miller wrote:
> Poul Nielsen wrote:
>> I think that the best policy is to evolve CellML toward a clean and
>> simple specification. I don't think that this means that we require a
>> complete break with previous specifications at each major iteration
>> if, for ex
James Lawson wrote:
> Andrew Miller wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
> Hi, thanks for providing a nice intro to this issue Andrew.
>> There have recently been some discussions of changes which would
>> drastically break forwards or backwards compatibility of CellML (for
>> example, changing the way that c
Andrew Miller wrote:
Hi all,
Hi, thanks for providing a nice intro to this issue Andrew.
There have recently been some discussions of changes which would
drastically break forwards or backwards compatibility of CellML (for
example, changing the way that connections work).
I think that it
Poul Nielsen wrote:
> I think that the best policy is to evolve CellML toward a clean and
> simple specification. I don't think that this means that we require a
> complete break with previous specifications at each major iteration
> if, for example, we use deprecated/obsolescent flags. I bel
I think that the best policy is to evolve CellML toward a clean and
simple specification. I don't think that this means that we require a
complete break with previous specifications at each major iteration
if, for example, we use deprecated/obsolescent flags. I believe that
it is essential,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Miller
Sent: Wednesday, 9 January 2008 11:59 a.m.
To: For those interested in contributing to the development of CellML.
Subject: [cellml-discussion] Survey on opinions for the backwards
compatibility levels for
Hi all,
There have recently been some discussions of changes which would
drastically break forwards or backwards compatibility of CellML (for
example, changing the way that connections work).
I think that it is important that we come to some consensus on what the
policy for inter-version compa
