Chronological Thread 

< Chronological >      < Thread >

---

Randall Britten wrote:
> 18.3 point 9 defines the hidden set for a *component*. 18.4 point 6 refers
> to the hidden set of a *variable*.
>
> Similar for encapsulated set and sibling set.
>
> Might be OK as is, but what do you think?
>
Thanks Randall, this is exactly the type of issue we need to identify
and fix, and I really appreciate your help in finding these types of
issues. I have pushed a fix for this to my public git repo, and also put
it up on my 'latest rendered version of the spec' page.

One thing this raises is how we refer to parts of other people's drafts
- once we have a stable specification, it will be very convenient to say
things like 18.3.9, but the problem with drafts is that the numbers are
changing all the time and adding or removing a section would renumber
everything. We could refer to a particular git commit id together with a
number, e.g.
18.3.9 at commit ac9c214d5ff051229bda8f4668430cc09c3488ef
(http://repo.or.cz/r/cellml-draft-miller.git). However, a simpler
low-tech approach might be to just quote the surrounding text so people
can search for it.

Best regards,
Andrew

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cellml-discussion-bounces at cellml.org [mailto:cellml-discussion-
>> bounces at cellml.org] On Behalf Of Alan Garny
>> Sent: Thursday, 17 January 2008 10:52 p.m.
>> To: 'CellML Discussion List'
>> Subject: Re: [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification
>> for further work
>>
>> Dear Andrew,
>>
>> I quite like the structure of your document. Just one thing though: I
>> would
>> like, at this stage, to suggest references to the official CellML
>> specification. Indeed, you are no doubt very familiar with the official
>> CellML specification, but in my case it has been years since I have had
>> a
>> proper look at it. So, it would help me (and others, I am sure!) if you
>> could put some references here and there. That would 1) encourage
>> people to
>> give you feedback and 2) would save those of us (who are willing to
>> provide
>> you with some feedback) a lot of time.
>>
>> Best wishes, Alan.
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cellml-discussion-bounces at cellml.org [mailto:cellml-discussion-
>>> bounces at cellml.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Miller
>>> Sent: 16 January 2008 23:30
>>> To: For those interested in contributing to the development of CellML.
>>> Subject: [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification for
>>> further work
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have recently been working on developing an unofficial 'base'
>>> normative CellML specification to provide something off which
>>>
>> proposed
>>
>>> changes can be based and merged into.
>>>
>>> The aim of this unofficial draft specification is to provide a
>>> minimalistic, and normative, specification of all the core
>>> functionality
>>> of CellML. It aims to correct ambiguities and contradictions from
>>> within
>>> the CellML 1.1 specification (and without reactions, simply because
>>>
>> it
>>
>>> wasn't worth adding them to this spec unless the consensus seems to
>>> indicate we might keep them).
>>>
>>> The specification as it stands now (which can be obtained from my
>>> public
>>> git repository, using the instructions previously posted, or viewed
>>>
>> at
>>
>>> http://www.cellml.org/Members/miller/draft-normative-
>>> spec/toplevel.xhtml
>>> ) needs more careful review of the following aspects:
>>> 1) Does the specification lose any important normative information
>>> that CellML 1.1 includes?
>>> 2) Is there any part of the specification that can be interpreted
>>>
>> in
>>
>>> more than one way (i.e. ambiguities)? I have been aiming to be very
>>> strict about removing alternative interpretations so there is no
>>> reliance on common sense to guess what the text means - this is the
>>> only
>>> way to ensure that there are no disputes about what the specification
>>> means, and so it would be good to fix even trivially obvious
>>> ambiguities.
>>>
>>> Known deviations from 1.1
>>> -----------------------------------
>>>
>>> 1) Reactions are not described, deliberately.
>>> 2) The name attribute on group has not been described. There are
>>> discussion underway about what to do with group - if only
>>>
>> encapsulation
>>
>>> is allowed, we can simplify it and get rid of name, otherwise we may
>>> need to re-add it.
>>> 3) The meaning of attributes without explicit namespace prefixes was
>>> defined in 1.1 to override the XML Specification. This had to be
>>> removed
>>> to prevent a conflict between the namespaces in XML normative
>>>
>> reference
>>
>>> and the specification text.
>>> 4) There is nothing in the specification corresponding to the
>>> restrictions on group in CellML 1.1 section 6.4.3.2 bullet point 2.
>>>
>> The
>>
>>> reason is that this is somewhat problematic when applied across
>>>
>> imports,
>>
>>> and the assertion in CellML 1.1 that having multiple group elements
>>> makes processing more complex has not been shown to be true in
>>> implementation experience (while testing the rule does make things
>>>
>> more
>>
>>> complex).
>>> 5) The restriction that grouping hierarchies must form a tree is only
>>> specified for the encapsulation. This could be extended to all groups
>>> if
>>> we decide to keep groups.
>>> 6) There are no restrictions on duplicate connection elements for the
>>> same pair of components (but there are for duplicate connections to
>>>
>> the
>>
>>> same variables).
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Andrew
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> cellml-discussion mailing list
>>> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
>>> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cellml-discussion mailing list
>> cellml-discussion at cellml.org
>> http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
>>
>
>

---

• [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification for further work, Andrew Miller, 01/17/2008
  • [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification for further work, Alan Garny, 01/17/2008
    • Message not available
      • [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification for further work, Andrew Miller, 01/18/2008
    • [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification for further work, Andrew Miller, 01/18/2008
      • [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specificationfor further work, David Nickerson, 01/18/2008
      • [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification for further work, alan.garny at dpag.ox.ac.uk, 01/18/2008

---

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.