Forums

Hi,

I am just curious as to what is the significance of this survey in terms
of the next SBML spec. If the voting results are meant to reflect the
voices of the SBML community and to be taken into account seriously, then
I think a better means should be used. With the current survey program,
anyone can easily cast his/her vote multiple times. So those who have
very strong feelings towards certain topics can influence the results by
casting their votes multiple times.

I am also wondering if there exists a standardization process for the SBML
specification. For example, what is the procedure for a porposal to become
a new feature in the next spec and who are involved in the process? And
who decides which features to be added? Can those who have proposed new
features also be on the specification committee (if such things exist)?
If so, isn't that a conflict of interest?

Happy holidays,

hiro

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Michael Hucka wrote:

> Sigh. You're right, of course and I was unrealistic. Let's
> push back the deadlines on all of them to keep things in
> sequence and get past the holidays.
>
> #4 (sboTerm): Jan. 3 midnight
> #5 (id's on SimpleSpeciesReference): Jan. 5 midnight
> #6 (reaction id's & assignment rules): Jan. 9 midnight
>
> MH
>
>>>>>> On 23 Dec 2005, Darren Wilkinson <darrenjwilkinson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> #5 (id's on SimpleSpeciesReference): Dec. 23 midnight 6
> >> #(reaction id's & assignment rules): Dec. 26 midnight 4
> >> #(sboTerm): Jan. 3 midnight
> >>
> darrenjwilkinson> Mike, This probably isn't what you want
> darrenjwilkinson> to hear, but all of the discussion of #4
> darrenjwilkinson> (and I haven't even mentioned Volume and
> darrenjwilkinson> Ph dependent rate parameters...) means
> darrenjwilkinson> that there has been very little
> darrenjwilkinson> discussion of #6. I for one am still
> darrenjwilkinson> very unsure of the pros/cons of the
> darrenjwilkinson> different options [...]
>