Re: SBML L2v2 specification vote #4: References to controlled vocabularies
22 Dec '05 11:18
So what you're proposing is for me to spend extra time making my
program slower because the community demands compliance? Wow. No
offense, but that doesn't sound like a good plan. I'd rather have a
common file format that is so easy to use that there is no need to
'ensure compliance'. I will continue my intransigent position until SBML
is usable For The Rest of Us.
(Can I be the first to coin the phrase 'SBML Nazi'? Akin to
Fashion/Grammar. Or is that too politically incorrect?)
Pedro Mendes wrote:
>On Thursday 22 December 2005 12:22, Howard Salis wrote:
>> And if the standard
>>says the MathML is authoritative...sure, why not. But my program won't
>>read in the SBML model without the sboTerms because it's impractical
>>otherwise. O well.
>Not exactly the spirit that all the other SBML participants usually have...
>SBML has been successful exactly because tool makers have been committed to
>using a common file format that all could understand. This has made several
>of us to end up programming things into our software that was not
>originally in our plans - but we gained compatibility and our users gained
>even more. If everyone would take the intransigent position you seem to be
>taking then there would be no SBML. O well.