First login?
Lost password?
 
 
cellml-discussion AT lists.cellml.org 
CellML Discussion List

Text archives Help


[cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification for further work


Chronological Thread 
  • From: alan.garny at dpag.ox.ac.uk (alan.garny at dpag.ox.ac.uk)
  • Subject: [cellml-discussion] Base normative CellML Specification for further work
  • Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 07:04:38 -0000 (GMT)
Hi Andrew,

> I am not quite sure I follow where you are proposing that the references
> should actually be from. Are you suggesting that the draft for the new
> version of CellML should refer to the previous one? Remember that this
> is a normative draft, and so it can only have normative references. A
> normative reference to the CellML 1.1 specification wouldn't seem
> appropriate for a CellML 1.2 specification - it would then include 1.1
> by reference and bring back all the problems associated with CellML 1.1.
> I think that a point-by-point annotation of the specification to
> contrast it with CellML 1.1 could be a valuable 'informative' part of
> the specification - it would be purely informative and wouldn't alter
> the meaning of the specification. However, the inclusion of this
> informative material is not part of the goals of creating the initial
> normative specification - rather, the aim is to very clearly separate
> the normative material from the informative material to aid in making
> the specification unambiguous.

All I was suggesting was a way to make it easier for people to give you
feedback. One possible way, in my opinion, would be to make references to
the current CellML 1.1 specification. Such information could be removed
before releasing the final version of your document (or leave it as
annotations). I have no problem with that, it's just that I believe it
would help us to help you (so to speak!).

Best regards, Alan.


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.

Top of page