Hi Nile! Thanks for the quick reply. Nile Geisinger wrote: > > We're working on a gray paper (not quite white) right > now on how the different systems could work together. > This is very important if we are to continue pursuing > collaboration. When we finish (tommorow or Wednesday), > we will send it over to you for review, comments, > corrections, rewrites, etc.. Our hope is that, by > working on a common paper detailing our visions, we > will be able to see if collaboration is possible. Great. We look forward to seeing it. > P.S. One thing we also talked about is adopting the > word piping over linking in our programs and > development docs. We will still have to keep the word > "linking" for investors (because of our goal to bring > to programming what the web brought to publishing), > but this would allow us to communicate better. It > would also make the interaction between BlueBox and > Piper more coherent to interested parties. If we > collaborate, it will probably make sense for us to do I don't think there is any need for you to change your terminology. A "pipe" is a type of "link", an element in the set of all links. For example, there are hyperlinks used on the web. And, Overflow, the system that works in our Processing Layer (PL), makes procedure-level connections that probably couldn't be called "pipes" in the UNIX sense. Overflow even concatonates "linked" strings, which is certainly not piping. We just think "Piper" is a better name than "Linker", which would probably be confused for a dynamic linker. Cheers. Jeff -- +----------------------------------+ | J.W. Bizzaro | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/~jeff/ | | | | BIOINFORMATICS.ORG | | The Open Lab | | | | http://bioinformatics.org/ | +----------------------------------+