Hi Raynald; Thanks for writing! Raynald wrote: > However, it seems that the Piper XML is not yet completely defined. I am > working in the Pasteur Institute and there is a software called Pise: > http://www-alt.pasteur.fr/~letondal/Pise/ written by Catherine Letondal > (letondal at pasteur.fr). I really like Pise a lot, and there was actually a bit of discussion on the Loci list about it back when it was first GPLed. I've spent a lot of time since then looking through the mounds of perl code that make it up :-). Raynald wrote: > In two words, this is an interface builder. It makes HTML pages and CGI > scripts for unix programmes related with Biology. My point is it uses XML to > describe the program to be interfaced. This program is under GPL and well > documented. I think it would be great if Piper and Pise could share the same > DTD... As Jeff mentioned, we do have a semi-permanent DTD working for Piper which is kind of a conglomeration between the old Loci XML format, and the way that Overflow does things. This is not yet permanent, but has been in place for a little while. That being said, there is still room for some flexibility (since I'm no stranger to rewriting code :-). A few months ago, I was really ready to just use the Pise DTD for Loci, actually. However, as I've got into Piper more and more I've realized that the Pise DTD isn't really meant for the kind of system Piper is trying to be. The big difference is that Pise is, as you mentioned, mostly concerned with being an interface generator. By contrast, Piper (in my mind) is less concerned with generating interfaces for specific programs, and a little more concerned with creating an interface to make connecting programs together more intutitive. The Piper DTD mainly focuses around three elements: Parameters, Inputs and Outputs. The Pise DTD is mainly focused on the Parameter part of this, which makes a lot of sense, since it is designed to create specific GUIs. Pise does have a pipe element, which provides some support for piping output from one program into another, but this seems less developed then Piper is trying to be. This right here seems to be the major sticking point, since Pise would have to add on quite a few changes here to deal with this. You mentioned the possibility of "some" modifications of the part of Pise, but I would imagine these would be quite small, considering that Pise is already in use in quite a few places. It seems like adding on whole another Input and Output parts might not be favorable, but I don't know... There could probably be some reconciliation on the parameter attribute on our part, but the thing I'm most worried about here is that Jeff has been wanting to use BlueBox to do the generation of user interfaces, so I don't know if the Pise model would fit with this, since we haven't seen BlueBox yet. Did you have any ideas how the Pise and Piper models could be combined, now that you've seen both DTDs? Jeff wrote: >> Also, Piper is meant to be general-purpose, not biology-related (/Loci/ was >> originally supposed to be biology-related). I see some Pise tags like >> "Sequence", which we wouldn't want to use. Well, this isn't a big concern to me, since we are not forced to use all of the elements, and specific nodes that wanted to use biology related terms could use them. I guess we would have a danger of developing some huge monsterous DTD with lots of domain specific information in it, which would be a bad thing. Raynald: > What do you think of that ? I think it is a really good idea, but am worried about the technical difficulties of doing it because of the differences in the goals of the two projects. Having read what I said, what do you think? Brad