Hi all, There are a number of items in the CellML tracker regarding decisions about the next version of the CellML specification, which have been discussed in the past and around which consensus seems to have been reached, but on which we have yet to declare a final decision. By making a final decision as a community on a set of questions, further important questions about what will be in the specification can be more easily discussed (without having to consider the interaction with every possible other decision that is still open).
There has recently been some discussion over the best process to make decisions on specification related proposals. Although the exact details of the process still has to be worked out, there was agreement (at least amongst people in Auckland) that we should make decisions by unanimous agreement where possible, and only fall back onto some other process where this has been shown not to be possible. The process for determining such unanimous agreement seems to be to that the issue is proposed, discussion on the proposal takes place, and when this discussion dies down and there is an apparent consensus, community input is sought, and a deadline (sufficiently far in the future) for objections is provided. In the event that no objections are raised by the expiry of the deadline, the decision has been made. Objections could relate to the substance of the proposal, or simply be to request more time for the decision to be made. So that the list of decisions I identified can be made, I have set a deadline of one week from now, that is, Wednesday March the 12th, at 00:00:00 GMT (which is March 12th, 1:00 pm in NZDT). If you feel that this is not enough time, please make a note of this on the tracker item, including when you think the deadline should be, before the expiry of the March 12th deadline, so that the decision won't be made without your input. The list of tracker items with my summary of them follows. If you are interested in discussion on these issues, please add yourself to the CC list for the individual tracker item concerned (you will need to create an account on the tracker if you don't have one already, but this is a process which anyone can do). Tracker item 312 (https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=312) - proposal is that in the spec, we call individual CellML 'files' CellML Infosets, and we call all the files together 'CellML Models'. Tracker item 319 (https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=319) - Proposal is that names like _1a be treated as valid CellML identifiers (fixes a conflict in CellML 1.1) Tracker item 167 (https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167) - Proposal is that imports create an instance of a model, and so it is invalid to import the same component twice in a single import element. Tracker item 193 (https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=193) - Proposal about when we change namespaces on elements and when we keep the namespace from the previous version. Tracker item 331 (https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=331) - Proposal is that RDF/XML inside extension elements should only contain extension specific metadata. Tracker item 332 (https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332) - Proposal is that we should allow references to secondary specifications which narrow down CellML to a specific type of problem (resolves issues relating to the CellML Subset in CellML 1.1 and the fact that the core CellML is too general to be fully implemented). Tracker item 56 (https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56) - That we consider the issues arising from the CellML subset resolved (conditional on tracker item 332) Tracker item 84 (https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84) - Proposal for a standardised real number format using a decimal point (as opposed to a decimal comma or decimal momayez). I haven't included tracker item 337, about removing directionality from connections, because discussion on it seems to have stagnated without reaching agreement on the details of the best approach. Best regards, Andrew _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
