Re: [TrackerItem 42]New: CellML1.1.1specification

Andrew Miller wrote:
> David Nickerson wrote:
>>> From what I gather, publicity. We need some way to direct people's
>>> attention to our intention to deprecate reaction elements.
>>>     
>> sure - but its still not clear to me if 1.1.1 is making clear our 
>> intention to deprecate reaction elements or if it is making reaction 
>> elements invalid in a 1.1.1 version model?
>>   
> 
> I think that both are true:
> 1) Reaction elements would be invalid in the 1.1.1 specification I proposed.
> 2) Versions of CellML earlier than 1.1.1 would be deprecated by virtue 
> of the fact that they are no longer the latest version of CellML, and 
> therefore reaction elements are deprecated.

but neither of these address our "intention to deprecate" the reaction 
element.

> I think that people who look at CellML at present are not sufficiently 
> discouraged from using reaction elements, and I agree that a new version 
> is reasonable to publicise what we as a community think is the proper 
> direction for CellML.

just to reiterate, when raising the issue of marking the reaction 
element for deprecation in the final 1.1 specification the decision was 
made to not do so and at the time it was also decided that the next 
version of cellml would be the one to formally mark the reaction element 
for deprecation. If this decision has been revisited and found in error, 
then the errata for the 1.1 specification should be updated to reflect that.