Other List Domains [+]
- Separate list domains for faculties, departments and business units
-
Tommy Yu
Tommy Yu
CellML Discussion List
Text archives Help
- From: david.nickerson at nus.edu.sg (David Nickerson)
- Subject: [cellml-discussion] Should groups be allowed to imply metadatainformation?
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:45:16 +0800
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 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'd be in favour of option 1 combined with moving containment into metadata.
Just to add a link to the tracker, also see:
https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316
- [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.
