Thanks Erik,
I managed to fix the issue before receiving your email, but this clears
things up for me very concisely. I would venture to say that the reason
that so many CellML models in the CellML repository do not pass Jsim's
units checking is not because of CellML, or any tools used to
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
Could we perhaps consider built-in scaling factors for CellML 1.2?
That way could still support the SI units but just that one of them (mole)
is as a scaling factor which is what it is as far as I can see.
We might also include built-in scaling factors for converting between
prefixes. For
Mike Cooling wrote:
Could we perhaps consider built-in scaling factors for CellML 1.2?
That way could still support the SI units but just that one of them (mole)
is as a scaling factor which is what it is as far as I can see.
Units already allow words like micro, milli and so on to be
Hi guys,
This is a little OT for CellML-discussion, IMO.
Although you can technically talk about a mole of anything,
I take issue with this. You can talk about 6.23e26 of anything, but when
you talk about a mole of something it *MUST* be atoms or molecules. It
is not just a term like
Hmmm well SI says
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
:
Mole: amount of substance
1. The mole is the amount of substance of a system which contains as
many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon 12;
its symbol is mol.
2. When the mole is used,
Hi folks,
Pretty interesting read. I actually came to what I do now through a
heavy cellular neurosci background so this disconnect between systems
biology and neurosci is something that has really bugged me. They
mention in the paper that SBML doesn't provide the spatial support
needed for
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
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'
Hi James,
Re your final question - the Physiome Project at the moment is largely about (i) the development of
the markup languages CellML and FieldML ( maybe ModelML for the physics) and their associated model
repositories and software tools, and (ii) strategies for bridging spatial and
Hi Peter,
I guess I framed it as a question to the community, but it was more of a
leading question that I'd like to address in the paper on the
repository. What I'm really talking about is the common preconception
that SBML and CellML are designed to fill the same niches. The niches
overlap
11 matches
Mail list logo
