On 13 May 2009, at 03:12, Michael Hucka wrote:
Hi,
I hope this is not too off-topic -- I'm new to this
group and still am trying to get a sense for what it's
about.
bparsia> The way to figure out it's formal scope is to
bparsia> read the charter:
bparsia> http://www.w3.org/2008/05/HCLSIGCharter
In fact, I did that before posting. But there is enough
breadth and room for interpretation in the statements
I don't see how. If you look at:
http://www.w3.org/2008/05/HCLSIGCharter#deliverables
you see that the group deliverables do not include standards.
there
that I still was not entirely certain whether my question
would be considered appropriate,
I think you are conflating standardization with the other activities.
I think SBML is the kind of thing for which HCLSIG could, if the
members felt up to it, implement use cases, produce technical
collateral, etc.
Thus, if you are looking for a wider forum for SBML, HCLSIG is
appropriate.
If you really want (and need) to produce a *standard*, that is, a
specification of a language that has the formal endorsement of the
W3C, then HCLSIG is merely a place to start building consensus for the
chartering of such a group.
[snip]
bparsia> Well, given that standardization is a costly
bparsia> endeavor, I'd ask about the motivations and
bparsia> expected benefits for moving development into a
bparsia> standards body, per se.n There are lots of
bparsia> different sorts of standards body and lots of
bparsia> different reasons for pursuing standardization.
Indeed. Standardization of SBML has been discussed over
many years in the SBML community,
Pointers?
but generally pushed back
due to various reasons, such as the question of whether SBML
was ready, and whether we had the resources to pursue
official standards recognition.
And is there a reason? I mean, if you have interop already and buy-in
from key players, then all that's left is publicity (or badge
collecting). These can be worthwhile, but they come at considerable
cost, not just for you, but for the W3C.
We may still lack the
resources (depends on what's involved), but aside from that,
my sense is that it is time to look into it seriously now.
[snip]
But, again, why? I mean, what goals do you have for standardization?
Are there implementations that don't comply? Are there vendors who
can't sell their SBML tool to govt agencies due to the procurement
requirement to use "recognized standards" thus they are forced to use
older, inadequate standards? Or is there a user base that likely
*would* use (and benefit) from it but just need to know they are
working "with a standard"? Or are there patent implications you are
trying to work around?
Cheers,
Bijan.
