- From: david.nickerson at gmail.com (David Nickerson)
- Subject: [cellml-dev] Java CVTerm implementation
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:31:50 +1200
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Andrew Miller
<ak.miller at auckland.ac.nz> wrote:
>
David Nickerson wrote:
>
>>
>
>> Morgan wrote:
>
>> It doesn't really make a difference to us as long as the API and CVTerm
>
>> can
>
>> parse it, but I was wondering if the way you did it was better for re-use
>
>> or
>
>> was conforming to CellML specification.
>
>
>
> I think it does make a difference in terms of portability of the
>
> generated documents.
>
>
The only time it would make a difference would be if it was to be processed
>
by an implementation which doesn't support the RDF or RDF/XML specifications
>
correctly.
or if it is treated as XML, which is the primary way CellML documents
are currently used. i.e., copy & paste of rdf:_1 between documents
could easily result in invalid RDF. Obviously not a problem once we
have decent annotation tools up and running...
Andre.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.18.