* Catherine Lloyd <c.ll...@auckland.ac.nz> [2010-06-03 20:55] writes: > Hi Lucian > > Adding to that, I'll emphasise again that this list forms the bare > minimum and we will be happy to expand on the list in the future. > "validity" and "simulation" could be two areas which we choose to > expand on first - for example simulation in a specific named tool, etc.
I think 'validity' probably isn't worth spending too much time on. If it's not valid, there are probably a bajillion ways it can be invalid, and the actual 'this file is invalid on line 3 because...' message you get from the API is probably more valuable than trying to classify all the invalidity error messages into curatable groups. (Though perhaps 'the model is overspecified' might be a handy particular thing to know? And maybe it wouldn't be too hard to say 'the model is syntactically invalid' vs 'the model is semantically invalid'?) However, 'simulation' probably *is* a more productive area in which to expand--if you could tell, in general, what kind of math techniques a model needed to be simulated, you could tell if your simulator (/translator) could handle those techniques. ODE's, PDE's, algebraic rules, etc. -Lucian _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
