[cellml-discussion] Should groups be allowed to imply metadata information?

2007-12-11 Thread Andrew Miller
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

Re: [cellml-discussion] CellML terminology: distinguishing CellMLmodels from the XML in which they are represented

2007-12-11 Thread Andrew Miller
David Nickerson wrote: I think option 1 would be much better than 2. An alternative might be the RDF and RDF/XML approach? Not too sure what that implies, but personally I see it as an RDF graph and then the XML serialisation of that graph. Could we use something like CellML Model and

Re: [cellml-discussion] CellML terminology: distinguishingCellMLmodels from the XML in which they are represented

2007-12-11 Thread David Nickerson
Andrew Miller wrote: David Nickerson wrote: I think option 1 would be much better than 2. An alternative might be the RDF and RDF/XML approach? Not too sure what that implies, but personally I see it as an RDF graph and then the XML serialisation of that graph. Could we use something like

Re: [cellml-discussion] CellML terminology: distinguishingCellMLmodels from the XML in which they are represented

2007-12-11 Thread Andrew Miller
David Nickerson wrote: Andrew Miller wrote: ... How about CellML Infoset, CellML Model, and Mathematical Model? That sounds good to me. While I guess this use of infoset is pretty common in the XML world, it might be useful to refer to the CellML XML Infoset? Or is it safe to