If we had our specification in a version control system and tagged
out
releases and release candidates etc, and if we followed a protocol of
releasing at least one stable minor release that marks depreciation
only, then the following would be the result (in my mind)
- The current
David Nickerson wrote:
Matt wrote:
It seems there is some misunderstanding as to whether we are discussing
a proposal to remove the reaction element from CellML or a proposed new
specification. I thought it was the latter but you seem to be talking
about the former...
Both. I think.
So I
More generally I think this issue is tapping on the bigger issue of a
core modelling language and specification, and then special use cases,
of which biological modelling would be a particular case of.
Without reactions, we pretty much have that core language.
My inclination is that biological
David Nickerson wrote:
Andrew Miller wrote:
David Nickerson wrote:
From what I gather, publicity. We need some way to direct people's
attention to our intention to deprecate reaction elements.
sure - but its still not clear to me if 1.1.1 is making clear our
David Nickerson wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that nothing in the text of the
CellML 1.1 specification says that reactions will or will not be
deprecated in any future version of CellML, and therefore there is no
need for an erratum to CellML 1.1 (and indeed, such an
