Matt Halstead wrote:
>> Otherwise, Matt wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> ... 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...
>>>       
>> Treat that model in what way? Surely, if a model uses some 1.2 elements,
>> then there must be a reason to it. Therefore, a 1.2 model cannot be treated
>> as a 1.1 model, or did I miss something?
>>     
>
> It really depends on the intention of adding to the spec. If you are
> adding elements that change the interpretation of the CellML 1.1
> namespace elements, then yes, there is no point in trying to see only
> the cellml 1.1 model within a model that has 1.2 elements.
>
> Sometimes people use "levels" to denote changes to a spec (which often
> also a new namespace) that are additive and still render the previous
> level a valid model.
>   

I think that the CellML specification should only describe 'core' 
aspects which affect the interpretation of the model. Anything which is 
additive should not be in the core CellML but should use extension 
elements or be in RDF. A simple rule to identify whether an unrecognised 
element is a fatal error is to see if it is in a namespace starting with 
http://www.cellml.org/cellml/ . If it is, then tools should assume that 
they are unable to interpret the model correctly and so should fail. If 
it isn't, it is an extension element, and so is not essential to the 
interpretation of the model, but rather is additive as Matt has 
described, and so may safely be ignored.

Best regards,
Andrew

>
>   
>>         Alan.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to