Hi Matt, This makes quite a bit of sense to me.
> So, more concretely, I am proposing that: > - we start the notion of a versioned workspace or package. yep. It would also be good to decide on either workspace or package :-) > - the package is named and has an abstract version and the name is part of the package URI or the URI is the name? Do you see things like the simulation and graphing metadata to start interacting with packages/workspaces in addition to straight CellML models or that the concept of a package supersedes the use of models in this context? (I'm thinking the latter would make more sense than starting to tie variable references to particular document versions) > - for the minimal case of a CellML 1.0 model and metadata in a single > document, the package name can be the model name, but the abstract > version is still separate from the document version Why the restriction on only CellML 1.0 models? Currently a model name is not used for anything so I'm not sure why a 1.1 model name can't also be used as a package name? > - that we add a package name and version number metadata construct to > all the models. while this makes sense in a 1.0 world, in a more general case any given model could be in more than one package/workspace. I'm guessing that the metadata construct you are thinking about could then easily be outside a particular model document (or within one) and refer to all it's constituent models via their URI? Where the URI or some other identifier would consist of the document version information. > - that for most purposes in our discussions we will be talking about > this abstract version and what it would mean to increase its major or > minor numbers, alpha, beta, or release status etc. agreed. Andre. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
