> The problem that lead to this thread of discussion is that there is no
> well-defined project team, and I don't think that we need to create a
> formal project team to make a list of contact addresses.
http://www.cellml.org/team exists and has existed since cellml.org first
went live. Are you
This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
send to the list. Thinking about this more we should probably try:
1) cellml-discussion@cellml.org
2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - for specific enquiries that you do
On 6/25/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
> > would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
> > send to the list. Thinking about this more we should probably try:
> >
> > 1)
Matt wrote:
> On 6/25/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matt wrote:
>>> This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
>>> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
>>> send to the list. Thinking about this more we should probably
On 6/25/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
> > On 6/25/07, David Nickerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Matt wrote:
> >>> This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
> >>> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
>
> a catchall for the whole team for example, I don't really know
> who I would want to bother personally if I had a personal problem with
> the sbml site or wanted to invite the team to a conference, or was
> rejected from the mailing list, etx; I would just use the "Email:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt wrote:
> This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
> send to the list. Thinking about this more we should probably try:
>
> 1) cellml-discussion@cellml.org
>
> 2) [EMAIL PROTECTED] - for spec
Matt wrote:
> This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
> send to the list.
Wasn't this originally your suggestion?
Thinking about this more we should probably try:
>
> 1) cellml-discussion@cell
Matt wrote:
> This seems like it's going in circles.
Agreed :)
I'm not really sure why anyone
> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
> send to the list. Thinking about this more we should probably try:
>
> 1) cellml-discussion@cellml.org
>
> 2) [EMAIL PROTECTE
David Nickerson wrote:
>> The problem that lead to this thread of discussion is that there is no
>> well-defined project team, and I don't think that we need to create a
>> formal project team to make a list of contact addresses.
>
> http://www.cellml.org/team exists and has existed since cellml
David Nickerson wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>> This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
>> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
>> send to the list. Thinking about this more we should probably try:
>>
>> 1) cellml-discussion@cellml.org
>>
>> 2
On 6/26/07, James Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Nickerson wrote:
> > Matt wrote:
> >> This seems like it's going in circles. I'm not really sure why anyone
> >> would want to contact us personally with something they didn't want to
> >> send to the list. Thinking about this more we shou
James Lawson wrote:
> David Nickerson wrote:
>
>> I think using the mechanism Andrew suggested earlier which allows people
>> to make themselves visible on the subscribers list for cellml-discussion
>> is a suitable way to achieve this,
>>
>
>
> Hmm, this is pretty low-key though. I th
> I still don't like the idea of a 'core project team' simply because that
> would require defining what the core project is, and it would appear to
> then give exclusive domain over such aspects to a limited set of people.
> In some sense, my objection is that the CellML 'project' is not strictly
> >
> >> events like the CellML Workshop. There is also the members directory for
> >> everyone who has an account on cellml.org.
> >>
> >
> > But is that available to visitors and other members?
> >
> You can view:
> http://www.cellml.org/Members/member_search_results
> without being logged in (of
Matt wrote:
>> I still don't like the idea of a 'core project team' simply because that
>> would require defining what the core project is, and it would appear to
>> then give exclusive domain over such aspects to a limited set of people.
>> In some sense, my objection is that the CellML 'project'
Hi,
I thought Andrew's ideas here is worth expanding, and I wrote a page based on
that.
http://www.cellml.org/Members/tommy/BaseRepository
Cheers,
Tommy.
Andrew Miller wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>>> - Version/Variant
>>> It already clogged up the system. There is no proper revision control
>>> m
David Nickerson wrote:
> Hi Tommy,
>
> Thanks for picking that up, I didn't even think to check the CellML
> namespace!
>
Hi Andre,
I have updated the XSLT used by the model repository to accept both 1.0 and 1.1
models, but the repository itself still does not distinguish between the two
dif
Hi Tommy,
That looks good - its all starting to make sense to me now.
I'm just wondering how your system would handle a case where two authors
independently encode the same published model. The first author to
upload their encoding would get "ownership" of the publication alias (if
I have the
David Nickerson wrote:
> Hi Tommy,
>
> That looks good - its all starting to make sense to me now.
>
> I'm just wondering how your system would handle a case where two authors
> independently encode the same published model. The first author to
> upload their encoding would get "ownership" of t
20 matches
Mail list logo
