Re: [sbml-arrays] Extending the mathML subset

[Nicolas R. <rod...@eb...>]

On 01/21/2014 04:06 PM, Sarah Keating wrote:
> On 21/01/2014 14:46, Chris J. Myers wrote:
>> I honestly did not think of this one, so I guess that means I meant for the type to be implicit.  I don't have a strong feeling about this as long as libsbml and JSBML agree on what they do with it.
> But it does need to be solved.
>
> It is a bit of a cop out to say it doesn't matter so long as libSBML and
> JSBML do the same thing (which since neither actually does anything
> mathematical is irrelevant.)  The specification needs to make it clear
> to anyone developing support for the package - whether they use
> libsbml/jsbml or something else.
>
> If arrays is going to use selector/transpose etc in a slightly different
> fashion to their definition in MathML then the arrays specification
> needs to detail this.

I agree that the specs should be clear about the interpretation of the 
math, in particular, in case where
they are differences from standard mathML.

>
> Sorry not meaning to be blunt or denigrate the effort Chris has put into
> arrays so far :-) It was just having got to the point of implementing
> support for this - I hit a wall with not really knowing what I should be
> implementing.
>
> I can go with "it is implicit" :-)

I am fine as well with the type attribute being implicit.

Thanks,
Nico