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

Andrew Miller wrote: > 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 Cel

Re: [cellml-discussion] Should groups be allowed to imply metadatainformation?

Andrew Miller wrote: > 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 m

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

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

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

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 somet

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

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 > an

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

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

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 CellML Model/XML or maybe CellML

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

Hi all, I have been working on resolving the current terminology issues in CellML 1.1 where 'model' is used to mean both the XML file in which the model element resides, and the abstract mathematical model represented by that XML file when any imports have been processed. This overloading has