Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

> > Looking at it from a pure end-user / programmer point of
> view, if that
> > was to be an option, then that could potentially result in some
> > "errors"
> > to be
> > reported to the end-user.
> >
> > Say that a CellML compliant software (ours for instance) knows,
> > internally, about all those standard units. In this case, to open a
> > CellML 1.1 file that imports a set of standard units would
> report some
> > "errors" to the user. At least, our software would, since
> it would see
> > those new standard units as being a redefinition (valid, I
> grant you
> > that) of the "internal"
> > standard
> > units. To avoid those errors (and therefore be able to use
> the CellML
> > file), the end-user would have to remove the import...
>
> We will from time to time want to consider changes to the
> specification that may break software that are compatible
> with earlier versions. The version of a model is clearly
> indicated in the namespace defined in the model element, so
> differentiating them will not be a problem for software.
> Keeping CellML API implementations backwards compatible is
> certainly something we take seriously, so that upgrading
> models to new structures always remains possible for
> application developers.

Keep in mind that CellML shouldn't change too often or too drastically...

We are not in the industry business, where people are paid to develop
softwares. The softwares that we develop (in our lab, it is mainly done
during our free time) are so that we can carry out our research, first and
foremost.

Someone I know has, for instance, spent more or less the last 10 years
rewriting models from one format to another, so that they are in line with
the latest "hype"... If we start doing something similar with CellML, we may
end up with people simply going away from it. I understand that with an
XML-based format, things are easier, but still...

Cheers, Alan.

PS: don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the effort that you CellML guys are
putting into the specification. I am just concerned about the additional
work that all those changes will require...

---

• [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Alan Garny, 08/06/2004
  • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Matt Halstead, 08/06/2004
    • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Alan Garny, 08/06/2004
      • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Matt Halstead, 08/07/2004
        • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Alan Garny, 08/07/2004
  • <Possible follow-up(s)>
  • [cellml-discussion] cellml units, Warren Hedley, 08/07/2004

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.