MakeMaker, OMG

[Georg Fuellen]

Hi SteveC,

> Did everyone see the recent article about MakeMaker in the latest TPJ 
> (issue #7, Fall 1997)? It could prove helpful as we prepare to distribute 
> Bio::PreSeq and Bio::UnivAln. Shall we set a target date for distribution?

Definitely, we need to get the stuff out of the door as soon as possible !
I did few changes to Bio::UnivAln in the meantime (I can mail the diff
and/or the newest version to you). 

> ---
> 
> A new OMG domain special interest group (DSIG) has been established for  
> the Lifesciences:
> 
> http://lsr.ebi.ac.uk/
> 
> The OMG is a non-profit consortium of numerous biotech comanies and 
> university groups, so the standards they adopt could have wide-ranging 
> impact on the future development and operation of bioinformatics 
> software.  
> 
> The goal of this new DSIG is to improve communication and 
> interoperability among object-oriented computational resources in life 
> sciences research by establishing widely available interface 
> specifications. The OMG promotes CORBA/IIOP as the key technology for 
> achieving this goal. They have issued an RFI for information on 
> architectures, interoperability, object and data models, interfaces, 
> existing systems, standards, legal issues, and their priorities. 
> 
> I think our collective experience in designing Perl bio-objects would be 
> of value to this effort. Perhaps we can respond to the RFI as a group? 
> The deadline for response to the RFI is 10 Nov 1997. 

This would definitely be worthwile !!!  I feel we should stress the
importance of Perl for _fast_prototyping_, which (to me) is the niche
we best fit in. (Ironically, a bunch of overworked volunteers 
makes a very _slow_ development team -- we need to change this!
Could the development of Bioperl modules in the OMG context 
be something for which we could obtain funding ?)

If Bioperl adheres to the OMG standards, rewriting selected
components to Java and C should be painless, correct ?
If so, that would be a heaven for fast prototyping :-)

Do you guys at Stanford/GI have enough time ?
We need to print+send 50 paper copies, and 
``LSR-DSIG requests that submitters attend the LSR-DSIG meeting in East Brunswick, 
New Jersey, USA on December 2-4, 1997 prepared to present their responses.''
OTOH, a 1-page response would be more than enough; see the FAQ:
>>>>>>
I have some relevant information for an RFI but don't have time to write it up 
in a response?
[answer based on text from a former co-chair of CORBAmed] 
The best responses can be the short ones that reference other information. 
A one or two page response that references some web pages, articles, papers, 
standards, etc. can be very effective. If only a small portion of the referenced 
information is relevent it helps to point out those areas in the reference. 
<<<<<<

> Our response could include:
> 
>   * Key bio-objects we have implemented or plan to implement
>   * Basic object functionality and relationships among objects
>   * Pointers to POD documentation for relevant Perl modules
>   * Contact information and web sites we've developed

Agreed, basically.

> What do people think?

A 1-page response is a must-do, I think.

> SteveC

best wishes,
Georg Fuellen, fuellen@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de, fuellen@  alum.mit.edu
Univ. Bielefeld, Research Group in Practical Comp. Science, Fax +49 521 106 6411
Http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/techfak/persons/fuellen/ , Fon .... 106 2903