David Nickerson wrote: > Andrew Miller wrote: > >> David Nickerson wrote: >> >>>> From what I gather, publicity. We need some way to direct people's >>>> attention to our intention to deprecate reaction elements. >>>> >>>> >>> sure - but its still not clear to me if 1.1.1 is making clear our >>> intention to deprecate reaction elements or if it is making reaction >>> elements invalid in a 1.1.1 version model? >>> >>> >> I think that both are true: >> 1) Reaction elements would be invalid in the 1.1.1 specification I proposed. >> 2) Versions of CellML earlier than 1.1.1 would be deprecated by virtue >> of the fact that they are no longer the latest version of CellML, and >> therefore reaction elements are deprecated. >> > > but neither of these address our "intention to deprecate" the reaction > element. >
I don't really understand what you are trying to say. How does releasing a new version which does not contain the reaction element not show an intention that the reaction element be deprecated)? > >> I think that people who look at CellML at present are not sufficiently >> discouraged from using reaction elements, and I agree that a new version >> is reasonable to publicise what we as a community think is the proper >> direction for CellML. >> > > just to reiterate, when raising the issue of marking the reaction > element for deprecation in the final 1.1 specification the decision was > made to not do so and at the time it was also decided that the next > version of cellml would be the one to formally mark the reaction element > for deprecation. If this decision has been revisited and found in error, > then the errata for the 1.1 specification should be updated to reflect that. > Errata are primarily there to correct errors in the specification, not errors in the process by which the specification arose, or to make substantive changes to the specification. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that nothing in the text of the CellML 1.1 specification says that reactions will or will not be deprecated in any future version of CellML, and therefore there is no need for an erratum to CellML 1.1 (and indeed, such an erratum would be inappropriate). Best regards, Andrew _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
