On 9/19/07, Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Halstead wrote:
Andrew was opposed to the idea of changing all the namespaces, and
suggested changing the namespace of a particular element in only some
circumstances:
I agree very strongly with this. It would make writing out xpath
expressions simpler since you know absolutely what namespace for what
elements you want to target.
The namespace argument also applies to new attributes - they need to
be placed into a new namespace too and references explicitly as such
in a document since the rule for CellML is that unnamespaced
attributes will acquire the namespace of the element owning them.
This is something which I think we should change ASAP - it is a
deviation from the XML specification which we should not be declaring at
the CellML level. I think that once this is sorted out, versioning the
elements is sufficient, and there is no need to mix namespaces of
attributes within the same element (if the attribute definitions change,
then the semantics of the element have changed, so we change its namespace).
Yup
Poul thinks that mixing namespaces means you have to scan the entire
document before you can determine that you don't support a particular
version of the model.
I don't understand that. You might want to scan a document to see what
versions the model conforms up to, but one of the nice things about
pushing these new elements/attributes into new namespaces is that you
can still treat a model as say 1.1 even if it contains 1.2 elements
and attributes. So the scanning is already done implicitly by a
library that is simply trying to use a CellML model and is reading it
at the version level it is capable of.
Of course CellML 1.1 is broken in this sense.
There was some discussion about what namespace the model element
should be in CellML 1.2. Randall suggested it should be in CellML 1.1
and not CellML 1.0
Can we apply this to all existing elements and attributes then? So
that when 1.2 comes along and its interpretation we only really have
1.2 and 1.1 to deal with.
I think that was the intention - model was only an example of an element
with semantics that we don't plan to change, and any other element which
is neither new nor changed in CellML 1.2 would be treated along the same
lines. Then we can just implement 1.2 (and perhaps 1.0) without worrying
about explicitly implementing 1.1 as a separate task.
Best regards,
Andrew
cheers
Matt
On 9/19/07, Andrew Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
At the break-away session on the versioning strategy for CellML (which
followed the Auckland CellML meeting today) we discussed the future of
how we would version CellML, including whether we would put all elements
for the next version of CellML in a completely different namespace, or
only the elements that had changed.
A summary of the discussion is up at
http://www.cellml.org/meeting_minutes/MeetingMinutes19September2007/
under Breakaway session on versioning strategy for CellML. Note that
the participants at the session have not had a chance to correct errors
in it yet, and it may not yet accurately reflect everyone's view.
However, it does lay out the options, and so may provide a starting
point for any suggestions or comments from the community.
Please send and such suggestions or comments to the CellML discussion
mailing list prior to the 3rd October 2007.
Best regards,
Andrew
___
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
___
cellml-discussion mailing list
cellml-discussion@cellml.org
http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
