Hi Andrew, To simply delete reaction elements from a version 1.1.1 specification seems the wrong approach to me. This means that while a 1.0 model is a valid 1.1 model it could be an invalid 1.1.1 model. So the most minor version change is the one that invalidates the model?!?
If anything, a version 1.1.1 could mark the reaction element as deprecated but still valid. Although if I recall some other specification developments correctly (i.e., docbook), an element needs to be marked for deprecation a version before it is actually deprecated and removed from the language. Not sure what process we want to follow for CellML but this 1.1.1 draft specification would not be the way I hope we go. Otherwise how can anyone have confidence in using CellML at all when core elements can arbitrarily be dropped from the specification with no notice? Also, I'm wondering if we could set some ground rules for the development of new versions of CellML. Rather than people simply submitting draft specifications, I would favour an approach whereby people submit proposals (using whatever technology we end up using) and then we can discuss which version of CellML that proposal should be considered for. This would allow us to start developing a detailed road map of the features people want to include in new versions of CellML and the priority with which they are incorporated, as well as possible target dates for the various releases. David. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://trackerdev.cellml.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42 > > Summary: CellML 1.1.1 specification > Product: CellML Core Specifications > Version: Future versions > Platform: PC > OS/Version: Linux > Status: NEW > Severity: feature > Priority: Moderate priority > Component: Reactions > AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I have created a proposed draft specification for CellML 1.1.1, and put it up > at: > http://www.cellml.org/Members/miller/proposed_cellml_1.1.1/ > > The draft is essentially the same as CellML 1.1, except that: > 1) The version has been increased to 1.1.1. > 2) The introduction is updated to make it clear that Physiome Sciences Inc. is > no longer involved in CellML development. > 3) The reactions section has been deleted and all references to sections after > it have been renumbered. > 4) All references to reaction have been deleted. > 5) An copy-and-paste error reported by Alan Garny where we incorrectly used > the > word component instead of units was fixed. > 6) The DTD was updated to remove reactions and so on. > 7) I added myself as an author. > > Still to be done (please open new tracker items on these and set them to block > this issue you want to comment): > a) Update appendix D (changes since last version). > b) Repair figure 18, name is invalid on model (found by Alan Garny). > c) Fix the formula for computing new values for equations per the CellML 1.1 > errata. > d) Renumber figures. > e) Fix up some URLs which are incorrect, especially to historic data. > > -- David Nickerson, PhD Research Fellow Division of Bioengineering Faculty of Engineering National University of Singapore Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
