>From Michael Hucka <mhucka at caltech.edu> (large pdf not forwarded): ------------------------- jeff> Hi Michael. We just approved your project, sbw. jeff> Reading your description, I got the impression that jeff> the application has some of the same goals as Piper: jeff> http://bioinformatics.org/pipernet/ jeff> I would like your opinion on where you see some jeff> differences, if any. Perhaps there can be some jeff> collaboration. Hi Jeff, Thanks for setting us up on bioinformatics.org. We took a look at Piper some time ago and at the time, our sense was that PiperNet was indeed similar but differed in the following ways (and I admit these may be incorrect): - The protocol seems to require XML in its data transmissions, whereas SBW supports a number of data types, both binary and string. One *could* send XML using SBW, but it's not required. We see this as an advantage because it permits fast binary data transmissions if desired. - SBW is broker-based; this provides things like a registry and the ability to have callback notifications. It's not clear if Piper uses a broker -- perhaps it does also? - The SBW libraries for high-level object-oriented languages like Java provide proxy objects that greatly simplify the access of remote services. In Java, for example, there is very little "SBWness" involved in getting applications to talk to each other. We were trying to make SBW as transparent as we could to the application. (Things are not so easy in C, unfortunately, where one ends up having to go through a lot more work.) - Piper has a graphical dataflow-like layout system which SBW lacks. Piper has a paradigm involving nodes and data flows between them. These are cool ideas and advantageous in some context. One point, however, is that although SBW elements could be viewed in a similar way, most of the tools for which SBW is intended are GUI tools and it's not so easy to program their interactions from a third entity. Rather, the interactions emerge as users use the tools and switch from one to another. However, there are definitely points of similarity between Piper and SBW. I think our group here needs to look at PiperNet more closely. I see that the PiperNet pages have new material which we should look at. In case you're interested, I've attached a recent paper on SBW. This will appear in the upcoming ICSB2001 proceedings (http://www.icsb2001.org/). We have other documentation at http://www.cds.caltech.edu/erato most of which will make its way to bioinformatics.org in time. A collaboration would be fruitful if we can find ways of combining the best ideas of both systems. Mike