From: Dagmar K. <da...@eb...> - 2009-01-29 07:32:51
|
Hej Frank, We could indeed say we refer to a certain revision of the sedml schema for examples and test implementations, but that probably leads to more confusion than having 2 different files!? Maybe not for you, but for others. Especially when they compare the current versions of the UML/XMLS and PDF which might not always correspond to each other at all times. (At least I thought so.) I couldn't make up my mind between "tmp" and "current" and then thought that tmp was more representing the status of a schema containing not yet fixed changes (while sometimes you have to write them down for others to see whether changes make sense or not). I totally agree we should have an SBML-like structure for versions later on, but inho it would be an overkill for now. So lets move the discussion until we have at least a version 1 ;-) Cheers, Dagmar Frank Bergmann wrote: > Hello, > > here my thoughts on dealing with versioning. Currently, there exists > no official release, as that would hopefully be accompanied by a > comprehensive specification just like the SBML specifications. So I'm > not too keen on naming things sedml-tmp, or sedom-tmp. if it needs to > be anything a suffix as current sounds more promising. > > Until a release, SVN manages successfully to keep track of all > versions, and all revisions can be restored, so there is no need to > rename files. I can refer to: > > http://miase.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/miase/sed-ml/documents/schema/sedml-version-0-release-1.xsd?revision=11 > > or > > http://miase.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/miase/sed-ml/documents/schema/sedml-version-0-release-1.xsd?revision=23 > > > without problems. So for discussions all is well ... once we agree > versions should be kept and hopefully not modified. usually you find > repositories separated into trunk (current branch), tags and branches > (named versions), which allows to better keep track of current vs past > things. > > As soon as things become stable enough, why not keep them as in the > sbml repository where you find them in directories separated by levels > and versions i.e: > > specifications/sbml-level-2/version-4/schema > > so far my thoughts. > > cheers > Frank > > On Jan 28, 2009, at 7:46 AM, Dagmar Köhn wrote: > > >> Hej all, >> >> I have submitted a new version of the XML Schema on SF as "sedml- >> tmp.xsd". >> For further proposals for corrections of the schema I would suggest to >> use the sedml-tmp.xsd file only. We can then discuss the changes and >> once we agreed on them I can update the "stable" schema. >> >> The same should be done for the UML object model - I have added a >> sedom-tmp.uml/sedom-tmp.pdf file on SF for discussion of changes on >> the >> mailing list. >> >> The "stable" schema is the one called "sedml-version-0-release-1.xsd >> <http://miase.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/miase/sed-ml/documents/schema/sedml-version-0-release-1.xsd?view=log >> >>> " >>> >> and it should correspond to the CMSB paper and the current UML model >> on >> SF [The schema does at the moment not correspond to the UML, but I >> work >> on fixing that!]. >> >> >> Any disagreements or better suggestions how to handle the different >> versions are very welcome. >> Please let me know. >> >> Dagmar >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: >> SourcForge Community >> SourceForge wants to tell your story. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword >> _______________________________________________ >> Miase-discuss mailing list >> Mia...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miase-discuss >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > SourcForge Community > SourceForge wants to tell your story. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword > _______________________________________________ > Miase-discuss mailing list > Mia...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/miase-discuss > |