Hi Andrew, > I am not quite sure I follow where you are proposing that the references > should actually be from. Are you suggesting that the draft for the new > version of CellML should refer to the previous one? Remember that this > is a normative draft, and so it can only have normative references. A > normative reference to the CellML 1.1 specification wouldn't seem > appropriate for a CellML 1.2 specification - it would then include 1.1 > by reference and bring back all the problems associated with CellML 1.1. > I think that a point-by-point annotation of the specification to > contrast it with CellML 1.1 could be a valuable 'informative' part of > the specification - it would be purely informative and wouldn't alter > the meaning of the specification. However, the inclusion of this > informative material is not part of the goals of creating the initial > normative specification - rather, the aim is to very clearly separate > the normative material from the informative material to aid in making > the specification unambiguous.
All I was suggesting was a way to make it easier for people to give you feedback. One possible way, in my opinion, would be to make references to the current CellML 1.1 specification. Such information could be removed before releasing the final version of your document (or leave it as annotations). I have no problem with that, it's just that I believe it would help us to help you (so to speak!). Best regards, Alan. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
