> One thing is bugging me: I'll illustrate by means of an example:
> We would be inferring that the set fluxes consists of only the elements
> {f1,f2,f3} from the three statements: "f1 in fluxes", "f2 in fluxes", "f3 in
> fluxes".
> But if fluxes={f1,f2,f3,f4,f5}, that would still be consistent wi
.m.
> To: For those interested in contributing to the development of CellML.
> Subject: [cellml-discussion] Using proposed CellML 1.2 features to
> create more re-usable metabolic models
>
> Hi all,
>
> To aid in working out what features we should include in CellML 1.2,
> If two models contradict each other (such as by each stating a
> initial value for concentrations of the same species, or a different
> mechanism for the exact same reaction), then this contradiction has
> to be fixed before the models can be composed.
It's not just about composition - dur
Michael Cooling wrote:
>> if both state variables have the same initial values and
>> rates (which they would...
>>
>
> why should they have the same initial values? I agree if they did then
> it makes
> no difference to the correctness of the model but it seems very possible to
> create a m
> not analogous to public and private in most object orientated
> programming languages
Quite right, I got confused.
> if both state variables have the same initial values and
> rates (which they would...
why should they have the same initial values? I agree if they did then
it makes
no differ
Michael Cooling wrote:
>> because if connections don't have directionality, then it makes no
>> sense in the language to say
>> that a connection is from A to B, as opposed to from B to A, and we
>> wouldn't want to force users to duplicate information and provide both
>>
>
> Oops I didn't m
> because if connections don't have directionality, then it makes no
> sense in the language to say
> that a connection is from A to B, as opposed to from B to A, and we
> wouldn't want to force users to duplicate information and provide both
Oops I didn't mean to imply directionality. I shouldn
Michael Cooling wrote:
> First just to check that in the the connection elements 'flux' should
> be 'fluxes'? For example, 'substance_a' component contains no variable
> 'flux', I assume you meant the set_of_lambda_of_real 'fluxes'?
>
Thanks for pointing that out - it is hard to validate so
First just to check that in the the connection elements 'flux' should
be 'fluxes'? For example, 'substance_a' component contains no variable
'flux', I assume you meant the set_of_lambda_of_real 'fluxes'?
I think I like this! When will it be released? ;-P
I don't know enough about the lambda
Hi all,
To aid in working out what features we should include in CellML 1.2, I
have been looking into one of the major difficulties with creating
re-usable metabolic models at the moment: that to compute a derivative,
you need to know all the fluxes, but when a model is extended, new
fluxes ca
10 matches
Mail list logo
