> Regarding the setups for a model, there is a minor UI inconsistency > here, because PCEnv adopts a many to many relationship between models > and graph panels (otherwise you wouldn't, for example, be able to > compare two model runs on the same set of axes). However, this conflicts > with the idea of providing the layout for the graph panels in the model > (because you could have two models open, which could provide conflicting > information for how to lay out the same graph panels). We could work > around this by setting the layout when a model is first loaded, but not > changing it on subsequent model changes (otherwise, we would be > repeatedly destroying a user's changes to the layout as they switch back > and forwards between models).
In terms of graphing metadata, it generally makes sense to define the graphs outside the scope of any individual model. And the approach I have taken with my own little simulation tool is to allow graphing and/or simulation metadata (RDF/XML) to be used directly as the user-input. The metadata can then be queried to determine what models need to be loaded and the simulations to be run. Perhaps a similar approach could be used in PCEnv and users could be allowed to load metadata directly in addition to straight CellML models. And then it is this "independent" metadata that is being edited by the user when they manipulate graphs in PCEnv. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
