On 9/19/07, Andrew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt Halstead wrote: > > "Andrew was opposed to the idea of changing all the namespaces, and > > suggested changing the namespace of a particular element in only some > > circumstances:" > > > > I agree very strongly with this. It would make writing out xpath > > expressions simpler since you know absolutely what namespace for what > > elements you want to target. > > > > The namespace argument also applies to new attributes - they need to > > be placed into a new namespace too and references explicitly as such > > in a document since the rule for CellML is that unnamespaced > > attributes will acquire the namespace of the element owning them. > > > > This is something which I think we should change ASAP - it is a > deviation from the XML specification which we should not be declaring at > the CellML level. I think that once this is sorted out, versioning the > elements is sufficient, and there is no need to mix namespaces of > attributes within the same element (if the attribute definitions change, > then the semantics of the element have changed, so we change its namespace). >
Yup > > > > "Poul thinks that mixing namespaces means you have to scan the entire > > document before you can determine that you don't support a particular > > version of the model. " > > > > I don't understand that. You might want to scan a document to see what > > "versions" the model conforms up to, but one of the nice things about > > pushing these new elements/attributes into new namespaces is that you > > can still treat a model as say 1.1 even if it contains 1.2 elements > > and attributes. So the "scanning" is already done implicitly by a > > library that is simply trying to use a CellML model and is reading it > > at the version level it is capable of. > > > > Of course CellML 1.1 is broken in this sense. > > > > "There was some discussion about what namespace the model element > > should be in CellML 1.2. Randall suggested it should be in CellML 1.1 > > and not CellML 1.0 " > > > > Can we apply this to all existing elements and attributes then? So > > that when 1.2 comes along and its interpretation we only really have > > 1.2 and 1.1 to deal with. > > > I think that was the intention - model was only an example of an element > with semantics that we don't plan to change, and any other element which > is neither new nor changed in CellML 1.2 would be treated along the same > lines. Then we can just implement 1.2 (and perhaps 1.0) without worrying > about explicitly implementing 1.1 as a separate task. > > Best regards, > Andrew > > > cheers > > Matt > > > > > > > > On 9/19/07, Andrew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> At the break-away session on the versioning strategy for CellML (which > >> followed the Auckland CellML meeting today) we discussed the future of > >> how we would version CellML, including whether we would put all elements > >> for the next version of CellML in a completely different namespace, or > >> only the elements that had changed. > >> > >> A summary of the discussion is up at > >> http://www.cellml.org/meeting_minutes/MeetingMinutes19September2007/ > >> under "Breakaway session on versioning strategy for CellML". Note that > >> the participants at the session have not had a chance to correct errors > >> in it yet, and it may not yet accurately reflect everyone's view. > >> However, it does lay out the options, and so may provide a starting > >> point for any suggestions or comments from the community. > >> > >> Please send and such suggestions or comments to the CellML discussion > >> mailing list prior to the 3rd October 2007. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Andrew > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> cellml-discussion mailing list > >> cellml-discussion@cellml.org > >> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > cellml-discussion mailing list > > cellml-discussion@cellml.org > > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > > > > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > cellml-discussion@cellml.org > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion