[BBF Standards] Initial Draft Documents for PICA

[Ralph Santos]

Raik Gruenberg wrote:
> Mea culpa Ralph,
>
> my intention was to polarize and spark some debate not to attack 
> anyone in
> person. The way I (mis)understood the draft, I thought this was the 
> general
> conclusion of the workshop and I thus expected the whole list to 
> fiercely fire
> back at me and explain the issues along the way. Sorry that I put 
> things so bluntly! That was not the first time, I am afraid, but 
> probably the most blatant case.
>
Raik,

No harm done.  In retrospect, as you point out your reaction is 
understandable considering that I don't of any report about the workshop 
activities to the list for the benefit of email readers who couldn't 
attend, which puts you at a disadvantage struggling to guess what's 
behind any reference to the workshop.  Furthermore the way I wrote my 
message one can get the impression that some weight of authority is 
behind it that I hadn't meant to convey.  If you need to apologize, then 
I should too.

Anyhow, if our places were exchanged I'd be asking just the sort of 
questions you asked.  I for one am glad you were comfortable enough to 
voice your opinion and spark some debate.  In your questions I saw clear 
notions of features and qualities a standard should uphold, and it's 
evident those notions are tempered not only by knowledge but by a 
sincere conviction to see something come out of this process that is 
effective while still being accessible, and I respect that.  As far as 
I'm concerned you've done nothing for which you need to apologize.  
Rather, I hope you'll continue to ask probing questions and demand what 
you see as important in a standard--as far as PICA is concerned, that 
can only help.

> Providing some working code on sourceforge is an excellent idea. The 
> discussion should rather remain on the mailing list though...
>
> Thanks also for great work of documenting PICA on OWW. I think you 
> could improve the draft by shortening it -- perhaps move the 
> explanations / motivations into another page or something like that to 
> make it easier to grasp the overall picture.
>
Yes, it does need to be shortened.  My thought in trying to write the 
documents was to try and do one omnibus document that spoke both to 
computing and biological issues while making them accessible, but that 
didn't work out as well as I'd hoped.  Others have mentioned that it 
needs to be shortened and more tightly focused.

Another thing that has been pointed out to me by others is that my 
writing style can be tough on readers who aren't native English speakers. 


> To the list: Are there any other data exchange-related documents 
> coming out of the workshop? Any general conclusions about questions 
> that where discussed here?
>

Speaking for myself, I'm afraid I can't offer much in the way of a 
summary of what happened at the workshop.  My note-taking skills are 
nonexistent.  Is there anyone out there who can share something along 
these lines?

> Again, apologies for the rough previous email
> Greetings,
> Raik
>

Once again, no worries.

Cheers,
---ralf