Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

"Andrew was opposed to the idea of changing all the namespaces, and
suggested changing the namespace of a particular element in only some
circumstances:"

I agree very strongly with this. It would make writing out xpath
expressions simpler since you know absolutely what namespace for what
elements you want to target.

The namespace argument also applies to new attributes - they need to
be placed into a new namespace too and references explicitly as such
in a document since the rule for CellML is that unnamespaced
attributes will acquire the namespace of the element owning them.


"Poul thinks that mixing namespaces means you have to scan the entire
document before you can determine that you don't support a particular
version of the model. "

I don't understand that. You might want to scan a document to see what
"versions" the model conforms up to, but one of the nice things about
pushing these new elements/attributes into new namespaces is that you
can still treat a model as say 1.1 even if it contains 1.2 elements
and attributes. So the "scanning" is already done implicitly by a
library that is simply trying to use a CellML model and is reading it
at the version level it is capable of.

Of course CellML 1.1 is broken in this sense.

"There was some discussion about what namespace the model element
should be in CellML 1.2. Randall suggested it should be in CellML 1.1
and not CellML 1.0 "

Can we apply this to all existing elements and attributes then? So
that when 1.2 comes along and its interpretation we only really have
1.2 and 1.1 to deal with.

cheers
Matt



On 9/19/07, Andrew Miller <ak.miller at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At the break-away session on the versioning strategy for CellML (which
> followed the Auckland CellML meeting today) we discussed the future of
> how we would version CellML, including whether we would put all elements
> for the next version of CellML in a completely different namespace, or
> only the elements that had changed.
>
> A summary of the discussion is up at
> http://www.cellml.org/meeting_minutes/MeetingMinutes19September2007/
> under "Breakaway session on versioning strategy for CellML". Note that
> the participants at the session have not had a chance to correct errors
> in it yet, and it may not yet accurately reflect everyone's view.
> However, it does lay out the options, and so may provide a starting
> point for any suggestions or comments from the community.
>
> Please send and such suggestions or comments to the CellML discussion
> mailing list prior to the 3rd October 2007.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> cellml-discussion mailing list
> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>

---

• [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, Andrew Miller, 09/19/2007
  • Message not available
    • [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, Matt Halstead, 09/19/2007
      • [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, Andrew Miller, 09/19/2007
        • [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, Matt Halstead, 09/19/2007
  • [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, Alan Garny, 09/20/2007
    • [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, Andrew Miller, 09/20/2007
      • [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, David Nickerson, 09/20/2007
  • Message not available
    • [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, Matt Halstead, 09/20/2007
      • [cellml-discussion] CellML Versioning Strategy, Andrew Miller, 09/20/2007

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.