Alan Garny wrote:
Shouldn't we therefore offer at least two different sets of CellML
1.0
files? One that only contains the model itself and another that also
includes some simulation specific information?
I actually replied to this somewhere else - I'll repeat it...
We just talked about this
Alan Garny wrote:
Depending on the end-user, it could be a, b and/or c, as well as the
fact
that apart from PCEnv, no other CellML-capable software that I am
aware of
can deal with CellML 1.1 models. This emphasises my view that we have
to
make the CellML API easy to use and provide several
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
intention to deprecate reaction elements or if it
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
David Nickerson wrote:
I think that we disagree about how the specification process should work
and what it aims to address. I see a given version of a CellML
specification as being a 'protocol' which both tools and model authors
speak, therefore allowing them to interwork.
All I'm
