Dear all, Based off the UML diagram at http://miase.cvs.sourceforge.net/*checkout*/miase/miaseOM/miaseOM/miaseOM.pdf?revision=1.5 , I notice that the UniformTimeCourse UML class makes the assumption that the model is being evaluated across a time variable (in other words, that time is special in some sense).
I understand that one of the goals of MIASE is for it to be format independent. However, I believe that the assumption that time is special harms the applicability to languages such as CellML (which aim to represent models in a domain-independent form, which means that concepts like time are not built into the standard, but rather, are defined as part of the model). As has been pointed out on an earlier thread on the MIAME mailing list, https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=18374.18884.225456.303727%40mellow.local&forum_name=miase-discuss , I have previously defined a short draft specification designed to represent similar information (although I agree entirely with the idea of replacing this with a better specification common to multiple modelling languages). The CellML Simulation Metadata focuses on the equivalent of the UniformTimeCourse simulation. However, these simulations are composed of one or more objects, which each associate with a variable in the CellML model and the range of the variable over the simulation (in the common case where time is the independent variable, there is one such object, which references time, and the initialStartTime and initialEndTime attributes on UniformTimeCourse simulation correspond to similar slots on the object in CSM). It looks like a structure similar to that used in CellML Simulation metadata would make sense in MIASE too. This structure would have the additional benefit of providing some of the simulation information necessary for PDE simulations. Best regards, Andrew _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
