Corrigendum for PEtab v1?

[dweindl]

There are a number of issues related to unclear / undefined aspects of PEtab v1.0 (math expression semantics, reinitialization according to the conditions table (#541, #542), ...).
Shall we (a) add some corrigendum there, or (b) should there be a PEtab v1.1, or (c) do we want to leave PEtab v1 as is and focus on v2? I'd currently vote for (a).

[matthiaskoenig]

I’d prioritize getting v2 finalized and included in the library, as my research depends on it. I’m holding off on my implementation until v2 stabilizes, since I want to take advantage of the new features as soon as they’re available.

Once v2 is in place, we can issue a corrigendum and refer to the v2 interpretation going forward. If there’s uncertainty about how something is handled in v1, we can treat the v2 definition as the reference. Personally, I’m a strong proponent of using upconverters—v1 files could be converted to v2 (which should be feasible given the backward compatibility), allowing simulators to focus primarily on supporting v2. This would enable tools to switch over to v2—assuming they only support a single time course span—with minimal implementation effort.