Other List Domains [+]
- Separate list domains for faculties, departments and business units
-
Tommy Yu
Tommy Yu
CellML Discussion List
Text archives Help
- From: ak.miller at auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Miller)
- Subject: [cellml-discussion] Should groups be allowed to imply metadata information?
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:10:36 +1300
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
increases the chance of that information being used by a range of CellML
processing software.
"
If extension groups cannot be used to imply metadata or mathematical
information, then there is not really anything left for them to imply. I
think that we should do one of the following:
1) Non-standard relationship types be disallowed, and only encapsulation
and containment be kept (encapsulation does affect the mathematical
formulation of the model, while containment is really metadata
information), or perhaps only encapsulation should be kept, with
containment data represented in metadata, or,
2) Allow groups to be used for metadata information, but in the
informatively annotated specification encourage the CellML community to
standardise on exactly how a certain type of metadata should be
represented (this is required whether RDF/XML or groups is used to
express the metadata anyway).
I would welcome any opinions that anyone might have on this.
Best wishes,
Andrew
- [cellml-discussion] Should groups be allowed to imply metadata information?, Andrew Miller, 12/12/2007
- [cellml-discussion] Should groups be allowed to imply metadatainformation?, David Nickerson, 12/12/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.
