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
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 example,
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
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
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
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
