Forums

The trouble with many languages is that most are written by computer guys for computer guys, one could argue even further that XML is written by computers for computers :) (any non-computer specialist who has done significant SBML Level 2 editing will know what I mean). SBML is great for model interchange, no question about it, for model representation for humans it is a different matter. We of course use jarnac which is currently adequate but it isn't at all very good at composition. Other people like a visual representation, hence we wrote jdesigner, others like a more logical represention such as Simpathica, each has it's strengths and weaknesses. At the moment we know very little about b other than it's in Lisp, I sure it will be great, but it is one of many representations that currently exist.

Herbert

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas Le Novère [mailto:lenov@ebi.ac.uk]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:46 AM
To: SBML Discussion List
Subject: RE: [sbml-discuss] Little b



"In little b, by contrast [to XML], the "specifications" are written directly in b, rather than English"

But this is exactly what XML schema is. XML schema is an XML language specifying other XML languages. And although the SBML schema stayed simple so far, we could transfer quite a lot of the spec directly in the schema, for instance using keys.

(I don't want to start a flame. I just think XML possibilities are often underated, particularly in SBML community.)

--
Nicolas LE NOVÈRE, Computational Neurobiology, EMBL-EBI, Wellcome-Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK
Tel: +44(0)1223 494 521, Fax: +44(0)1223 494 468, Mob: +33(0)689218676 http://www.ebi.ac.uk/~lenov