Semantically I think this is fine and theoretically does not change the meaning of connections.
It's important to highlight that software developers will need to: 1) relax the validation constraint for the existing rule (i.e. only one connection between any two components) 2) understand that component_1 and component_2 of map_components can change order over connection elements between the same components (some software may have used the current notion of there being only one connection and one order to component_1 and component_2 to optimise in memory object references) I think this could have some pronounced effects on some software. I wouldn't mind reworking the connection syntax altogether ... but that's another proposal. On 8/29/07, Andrew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Are there any objections to marking this as something we should include > in CellML 1.2? > > Best regards, > Andrew > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Andrew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> has asked for Include_in_CellML_1.2: > > Tracker Item 153: Allow multiple connections between the same pair of > > components > > http://bowmore.elyt.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=153 > > > > ------- Additional Comments from Andrew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Section 3.2.4 of CellML 1.1 states, in the second sentence of the second > > paragraph: "Only one connection may be created between any given pair of > > components in a model". > > > > This is a fairly pointless restriction from all fronts: > > * From a model authors perspective, it creates a burden on the author to > > consolidate all their connections which may have been created for different > > purposes, and current model authors claim that such consolidation is time > > consuming and error prone. > > * From a model readability perspective, it is also burdensome because > > connections between variables may not be in a logical order (this is less > > of an > > issue if tools are used, but the point still holds). > > * Implementation experience suggests that it is no harder to allow > > multiple > > connections between the same pair of components when writing simulation > > software, but the extra constraint imposes more work on developers when > > writing > > tools which try to validate the model. > > > > To fix this, we could simply drop the first two sentences of the second > > paragraph of Section 3.2.4, and perhaps replace them with a short > > explanation. > > _______________________________________________ > > cellml-discussion mailing list > > cellml-discussion@cellml.org > > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > > > > _______________________________________________ > cellml-discussion mailing list > cellml-discussion@cellml.org > http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion > _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
