On 05/11/12 10:10, Jonathan Cooper wrote:
Hi all,

Just wanted to respond to a couple of points.

On 30/10/2012 02:53, Andrew Miller wrote:
On 29/10/12 22:36, David Nickerson wrote:
In addition, we specifically ask for feedback on the issue of moving to
MathML 3.0 (tracker item 67
<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67>) and the
inclusion of stochastic variation in models (tracker item 2809
<https://tracker.physiomeproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2809>). The editors
generally agree that switching to MathML 3.0 at this time provides too
little benefit (mathematical clarity) for the cost involved in making
the change (tool support, interoperability with other exchange formats).

I think that it would be worth including MathML 3.0 in CellML 1.2 because: 1. It makes implementation easier by providing clear rules about the mathematical interpretation of models. 2. It is more cleanly extensible through the use of OpenMath content dictionaries. 3. It is mostly forwards and backwards compatible with MathML 2.0 - nearly every MathML 2.0 expression is valid MathML 3.0, and you can write MathML 3.0 so it is valid MathML 3.0. 4. The only implementation of the CellML 1.2 proposals so far has already been coded to use MathML 3.0 - so the cost in terms of tool support so far would actually be higher to change that implementation to support MathML 2.0.

For the sake of those not at the ABI, could you give more details of this implementation? Is it an API library that can be used from multiple programming languages?

The implementation is intended as a demonstration of CellML 1.2 features, and so design decisions have primarily focused on minimising development costs and maintaining agility rather than providing the best possible interface.

It is written in Haskell, but with the work currently being completed, limited C++ bindings to access generated code and run simulations will also be available.

Best wishes,

cellml-discussion mailing list

Reply via email to