Re: [cellml-discussion] unit conversion

Does it strike anyone else as inconsistent that 'moles' are a unit when moles are just a scaling factor? Like dozen. Maybe they should be implemented using 'multiplier' or similar rather than a base unit. For example, I could have a mole of amps. I couldn't have a second of amps. -Original

Re: [cellml-discussion] unit conversion

probably 150 years too late to do much about it! Cheers, Peter Mike Cooling wrote: Does it strike anyone else as inconsistent that 'moles' are a unit when moles are just a scaling factor? Like dozen. Maybe they should be implemented using 'multiplier' or similar rather than a base unit

Re: [cellml-discussion] (OT) the nature of 'mole' | Re: unit conversion

: [cellml-discussion] unit conversion Hi Mike, I agree - but there they are in the SI base unit list see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/units.html so probably 150 years too late to do much about it! Cheers, Peter Mike Cooling wrote: Does it strike anyone else as inconsistent

Re: [cellml-discussion] (OT) the nature of 'mole' | Re: unit conversion

Andrew said: It doesn't really make sense to say nanodimensionless per microdimensionless, I prefer nanolitres per microlitre even though you need to duplicate it if you have other conversion factors. Duplication brings in the possibility of error and inconsistencies, and is tedious and I

Re: [cellml-discussion] unit conversion

Oh, to clarify, I mean the statement It doesn't really make sense to say nanodimensionless per microdimensionless DOES in fact make sense.Colloquially we say.. Etc etc. From: Mike Cooling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 3 June 2008 1:42 p.m. To: 'CellML Discussion List

Re: [cellml-discussion] Audiocast of discussions with Kevin Burrage

If you have problems with the web control I recommend clicking the mp3 link at the bottom of the page and downloading the file completely which allows you better playback control. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Miller Sent:

[cellml-discussion] FW: Representing stochastic models in CellML

Just a note, for some reason you don't now need the SOCKs proxy from in the ABI. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randall Britten Sent: Monday, 19 May 2008 4:59 p.m. To: 'CellML Discussion List' Cc: 'Kevin Burrage' Subject: Re:

Re: [cellml-discussion] Representing stochastic models in CellML

I would be happy to turn up at the ABI at that time for this. Cheers, -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Sent: Monday, 19 May 2008 4:17 p.m. To: Kevin Burrage Cc: cellml-discussion@cellml.org Subject: Re: [cellml-discussion]

[cellml-discussion] Stochastic simulations SBML paper

Hi Here is a paper from the good folks at Newcastle. It's a lead in to their work on extending SBML to cope with stochastic modelling. http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/5/628 I understand their software can also be accessed from

Re: [cellml-discussion] Modularity with CellML

/search/srchabstract.jsp?arnumber=4483541isnumbe r=4483538punumber=4100185[EMAIL PROTECTED] isnumber=4483538punumber=4100185[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for your time, Mike Cooling Auckland Bioengineering Institute University of Auckland New Zealand _ From: Mike Cooling [mailto

[cellml-discussion] In and Out

Something that occurred to me just now: Aside from the fact that I think In/out is meaningless from a modelling point of view and is really an interpretation-of-the-cellml detail, it is also currently a redundant feature. Currently we can use the in/out connections to check against which