Andrew Miller wrote: > Hi all, > > The CellML 1.1 specification says: > > " > 6.5.3 Groups must not imply metadata information > > Modellers must not use CellML groups to associate properties or > classification information with sets of components. The metadata > functionality is the proper method for making such associations. This > increases the chance of that information being used by a range of CellML > processing software. > " > > If extension groups cannot be used to imply metadata or mathematical > information, then there is not really anything left for them to imply. I > think that we should do one of the following: > 1) Non-standard relationship types be disallowed, and only encapsulation > and containment be kept (encapsulation does affect the mathematical > formulation of the model, while containment is really metadata > information), or perhaps only encapsulation should be kept, with > containment data represented in metadata, or, > 2) Allow groups to be used for metadata information, but in the > informatively annotated specification encourage the CellML community to > standardise on exactly how a certain type of metadata should be > represented (this is required whether RDF/XML or groups is used to > express the metadata anyway).
I'd be in favour of option 1 combined with moving containment into metadata. Just to add a link to the tracker, also see: https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316 _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
